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)

There are not "two positions", but one comprehensive explanation using the scientific method which is shared by apparently each and every economist and all of the finest English language media sources, and on the other hand folks from the Erdogan government claiming a "conspiracy" without even elaborating. See WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Graphs, and bias / Average Turkish lira equivalent of 1 US Dollar (2005–2017) bar graph

Graphs, and bias

The two graphs in the section Presidential interference with the central bank both give an exaggerated impression of the acceleration of the crisis, as expressed in the caption of the Euro graph "The Turkish lira has a history of accelerating loss of value relative to the euro". (If they instead plotted the value of the lira measured in dollars and in Euros, they would give an equally biased impression that the crisis is abating.) To avoid bias, these graphs should be presented on a log scale, which has the property that a constant inflation rate is shown by a straight line. Maproom (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created a prototype log-scale graph, which you can see at http://www.weddslist.com/lira.png. The graph is the right shape, but the labelling of the x axis and the positions of the horizontal lines are wrong. It was very easy creating this graph with "Google Charts", you can see the code that does it by looking at http://www.weddslist.com/lira.html and doing "view source". But Google Charts seems to be a beta-release, and the code that labels the x axis is seriously defective. If the community decides that it would prefer such a graph to the current lira/dollar graph, I can try to create one with a correctly-done x axis. Maproom (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Average Turkish lira equivalent of 1 US Dollar (2005–2017) bar graph

Text above the bar graph clearly states 2005-2017. Reference appended to it covers 2005-2017. Either the 2018 entry should be removed or the text changed to include 2018 and the ref changed to one covering all years. (Appending a separate, different ref to 2018 is problematic, as said different ref may use different calculation methods and/or different data sources, leading to a false comparison.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Return to the old table on USD/TYR ?

I took the liberty to make these two related sections one section with subsections. On the substance, what about returning to the old table instead of the USD/TYR bar graph? See here. Pinging Maproom, AddWittyNameHere -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Exoplanetaryscience -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The old table lacks the unsourced 2018 information, so it'd certainly be an improvement regarding verifiability and I would strongly prefer that over the current bar graph at least. I do not believe the up-to-9-June status quo table solves the entirety of the issue raised by User:Maproom, though, which seems to also be a valid issue. (Though I would appreciate some further elaboration (and possibly a mock-up of the log scale graph they propose?) to ensure my understanding of what issue they're raising matches the actual issue they're raising)

As such, although I would support returning to the old table, that should be taken as "support old table over current bar graph (at least for the moment)" not as "support old table over all other options (including those that are yet to be mentioned)". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting the unsourced 2018 content and the bar graph/previous table under one umbrella. The bar graph provides a clear advantage over the other for providing an actual visualization of how the inflation has progressed. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Commonname rename to Turkish Lira Crisis

A quick google search suggests that Turkish Lira Crisis is the WP:Commonname. Suggest the article should be moved. This post is meant to see if this is controversial. Casprings (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The currency issue is only one symptom of the financial and economic crisis, see the article content. If anything, it might be renamed 2018 Turkish economic crisis, in line with the existing 2001 Turkish economic crisis article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:Commonname. It is okay that the name isn't precise. We should use natural language that the subject is generally identified by. Casprings (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I do know WP:Commonname. It does not concern our point here. Our issue here is not what name is right for a particular article topic, but rather what the article topic of this article is. And the crisis of the Turkish lira currency is only a small part/aspect of that topic, see article content. Naming the article "Lira crisis" would be plain misleading. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly not a standard name for this type of article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Where to put that ?

I find the following relevant, credible, but I wonder in which section should it go :

• Trump wants row with Turkey to linger until US elections: Turkish FM http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/trump-wants-row-with-turkey-to-linger-until-us-elections-turkish-fm-135961

Yug (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the source. To be honest, I very much appreciate that this article is yet free of the "X accuses Y of Z" stuff that compromises the quality of so many Turkey related articles. If anything, this appears stuff for the "Conspiracy theories" section. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

And here is another one for the "Conspiracy theories" section. I find this one no less interesting for the section. If you add the information from your source there, please consider to add this one, too. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not make edits adding "X accuses Y of acting with malevolent ulterior motives, illegally or otherwise badly towards Turkey" stuff

Articles related to Turkey on Wikipedia generally suffer from one disease compromising their quality: text elements that consist of statements in the form of "X accuses Y of acting with malevolent ulterior motives, illegally or otherwise badly towards Tuekey", which serve no purpose other than to imply conspiracies. This article has up until now been free of them (outside of the conspiracy theories section, where they might fit). Please leave it that way. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? – assuming that a reliable source confirms that X did make such a statement. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This kind of statement usually has no significant relevance for the article topic, as long as such a quote has no discernable/reported consequences, other than some guy/gal saying it, so it should not be in the article, and most certainly not in the timeline of (relevant!) events. Arbitrarily adding partisan quotes to the timeline also would rise issues with WP:DUE. For example in the case I reverted yesterday, Mr. Lavrov was timeline-quoted bullshitting about some U.S. policy towards Turkey, while even the policy concerned itself is so minor in relevance to the article topic that it is barely mentioned. If somebody feels they must have some discussion of U.S. policies towards Turkey, the proper place would be a paragraph in the "international consequences" text part, and the proper form would be narrating the facts in a NPOV manner rather than quoting accusations. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop putting up flags without explanation

Dear Seraphim System, please stop putting up an "OR" flag on top of the Conspiracy theories section without explanation. In fact every single sentence in that section is perfectly and directly sourced, it could not be further from "original research". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's synth and it's non-neutral. Several of the cited sources don't say anything about conspiracy theories. It's non-neutral because those sources would have to be removed to avoid the SYNTH, and that would put undue weight on only the sources calling it a conspiracy theory, which is generally a pejorative and non-neutral label that should not be emphasized unless it is so widely used by reliable sources that excluding it would be non-neutral. That isn't the case here. This subject heading needs to be changed to something that is not SYNTH from the sources that call this a conspiracy theory and the sources that discuss surveys and other issues like the influence of the media, but I'm not going to make any further edits to the section or article until the COPYVIO cleanup is finished. It just makes things harder. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that your point is not the section content, but the section headline, is that correct? Matter of fact is that pretty much all sources (except one, a reference for a quote from a Turkish media) in that section do carry the connotation of the headline. It would be fine with me to consider a modest rephrasing of the headline, but it should still do justice to the section content, and to the fact that the Turkish government communication about the crisis according to all non-Turkish sources is completely detached from reality. Suggestions? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The subject heading should be neutral, something like "AKP position" would work. The majority of sources I've seen discussing this have not called it a conspiracy theory such as this one [1]. This is being presented as an official government position. What the Financial Times article was discussing is somewhat different - the Financial Times is specifically talking about a quote from a non-notable person who begins talking about "Jewish families" and other things. That is not the same as the official government position or how much the media control has influenced the perception of AKP supporters discussed in the WaPo article. This is really a WP:SYNTH issue. Also, the first three sources cited do not discuss the currency and debt crisis at all - one is from 2016. This is also WP:SYNTH. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The last round of changes have not addressed any of these issues. I intend to restore the tag. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would wish for a more constructive attitude. What about "Turkish government claims of a foreign plot" as the headline? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

These are not "headlines" and they are not supposed to be written like headlines. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine, not "section headline" but "section heading". Those should, according to the MoS, be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. Would you agree with the suggestion "Turkish government claims of a foreign plot" fitting these criteria? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I had re-arranged the sequence of paragraphs in that section to set it up for an effective good faith solution of issues you brought forward, step by step. I would suggest to start with the section heading (my suggestion: "Turkish government claims of a foreign plot") and then move on, step by step. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As it appears that you have lost interest in the discussion, I will now (a) change the section heading to "Turkish government claims of a foreign plot", (b) move the section as a subsection under the "Politics and corruption" section (where you had moved its content before) and (c) will happily resume step by step discussion of details when you are back. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Improvements

What do you guys thinking about a new section covering the improvements? For example covering the reasons the turkish lira is on it's path to recovery these last 3 months. TheMuurtje (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to improve the article. --2003:74:CF3F:ACCE:3472:4D4C:6649:EF0B (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No crisis but normalisation

After a period of overheating with double digit growth it is rather a normalisation than a crisis, the gazette "Die Zeit" headlines about "Das Türkei-Wunder" but no miracle lasts forever: https://www.zeit.de/2017/52/wirtschaftswachstum-tuerkei-drittes-quartal-arbeitslosigkeit-zahlen --2003:74:CF3F:ACCE:3472:4D4C:6649:EF0B (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This indeed, this wasn't a crisis. It didnt even take 6 months. 87.214.138.158 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear anonymous users, the article you cite is from December 2017, before the crisis fully developed. The current situation is debatable, but toothpaste costing four times the amount as in semi-neighbours (as reported by Die Zeit) sure sounds like a symptom of an economical crisis. Bizegar (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We are now in March 2019, any numbers about last years growth/recession?

What about the year 2018? Did the economy stalled, did it shrink or did it grow? --79.255.86.34 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

update?

where is the current situation? 176.55.100.21 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Article name needs to be changed

As you may or may not be aware it is 2022 Eticangaaa (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Renaming t0 2018-2019 Turkish economic crisis

There is a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerning the article and it's name. The article does not provide any rationale on why this is a coherent crisis of 4 years (2018-2022). If we look at the quarterly growth rates or bond rates, we see a clear recovery starting in Q3 2019, marking the end of the recession and end of this Turkey-specific crisis. Then in Q2 2020, COVID-19 hits global markets, followed by the war in Ukraine. It makes no sense to merge all of this in one incoherent article, considering that other country articles are split appropriately (such as Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and 2021–present United Kingdom cost of living crisis). Especially when this current article mentions events after 2019 only at superficial value, such as "inflation reached X" and "the rate of Lira reached Y dollars". Randam (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Has anybody found RS(s) that give timeframes and names to these different epochs? If so we might split up the article accordingly, or reorganize the article and rename it with the plural _crises_. Pendletonian (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is too difficult for non-economists like me to understand. Maybe it should be split. At least the lead should be rewritten to be an overview and understandable by an intelligent high school graduate with no previous knowledge of the subject I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Source for 2023?

I see the page has been renamed but where is the source that there is a crisis in 2023? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have renamed it back to the previous name Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

6 Months out of date

This article needs updating the last time seems to be about 6 months ago! a lot has changed 94.235.113.252 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if you would update the article Chidgk1 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

they just gave up lol IAmAttractedToFemales (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reforming the Article?

I believe that this article should be reformed from a timeline list to an actual article. I wanted to see if others agree with this before getting myself into it. TheTurkishKnowledge (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)