Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A reminder to all about Wikipedia rules and goals regarding Libelous material, Defamatory, Hate, Bias and NEUTRAL point of view/tone...

A Friendly reminder to all lovely and respectable people in Wiki community...

The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1]

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. !!!

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

I encourage all of the Wikipedia community to abide by the above rules and help, this will ensure that hate, negativity and oppression are not contributing to the evil act of dividing people and communities and negatively impact world peace...

please EVERYONE follow Wikipedia rules by delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous/defamatory... lets clean this page of any info that go's against Wikipedia, that promotes hate and/or negativity.....

thanks to all the wonderful Wikipedia community members who are educated enough to help...

peace and love to all...14.200.53.53 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and removing libelous material doesn't mean kissing ass. It doesn't even mean creating artificial balance that's not found in sources.

If independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources refer to Erdogan as a dictator who silences the press and purges those who are politically inconvenient for him, that's how he's going to be described. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is my request, as I clearly stated for unbiased articles, but it also contained my current opinion and feedback of the current article in order to generate discussion, calibration and a reminder of rules and regulation in place by Wikipedia, with sincere intention of helping readers to better understand the scope of my opinion and help bring about a more useful discussion or possibly a constructive argument, and yes I do thank all previous wiki community members that helped last time, as mention above the current main article is extremely less offensive compared to previously, before wiki community helped, but again I feel it is still not a neutral or a balance article thus their should be discussion in a constructive manner of what is neutral, does the article have a negative bias ,which is quiet obvious from a neutral point of view, by all means I'm not saying it should all be positive all I'm asking is does contain a balance view or is it leaning towards a negative bias if so why? and how can we help improve it and eliminate the negative bias, if the situation was reversed and the article had a positive bias I would be asking the same questions, please understand the wiki community deserves an unbiased article, it should not contain either positive or negative bias but a well balanced article that does justice to rules and regulations of Wikipedia and so having quiet a lot of success last time, again I ask wiki community to up hold wiki rules and polices, and be kind to those who are new to community and may be still learning to use and express them self's correctly within this community... thanks for your patience, tolerance and understanding, cheers...14.200.53.53 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Objectivity and neutrality are not synonyms. We should not and do not treat things as 50/50 when they are not. "please EVERYONE follow Wikipedia rules by delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous/defamatory... lets clean this page of any info that go's against Wikipedia, that promotes hate and/or negativity....." If you are suggesting that we do not say that under Erdogan's rule Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding is not neutral because this would create negative feelings towards Erdogan, perhaps Erdogan should not have consolidated power, engaged in fraudulent election practices, eliminated public offices such as the position of prime minister, or blocked Wikipedia claiming that it's a national security threat. Elections are no longer as free and fair, freedom of speech is nonexistent as journalists can face incarceration for criticizing him, civil services and public offices are being eliminated, and the government overemphasizes on "national security." It's not biased or inaccurate to say Erdogan is backsliding Turkish democracy when his presidency has seen point for point everything that constitutes democratic backsliding. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

Please change "He was elected to parliament in 1991, but barred from taking his seat." to "He was initially elected to parliament in 1991, but another candidate who was in a lower rank than him in his party's list won the seat because of the preferential voting system." However he was not barred, but he was not elected because of the preferential voting system which was applied in 1991 parliamentary elections. Omerkutbulut (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I note the current statement is the article is also tagged as [citation needed], but that is no reason to add more uncited information. NiciVampireHeart 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests (15th June).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Insulting Erdogan

There is a VERY brief mention of this phenomenon in the article, in the Suppression of dissent section, citing some 2016 reports. However, things have moved on considerably from that time and I think the content urgently needs to be expanded. For example, according to this report [1] from June 2019, and citing statistics provided by the Turkish Ministry of Justice, in 2018 36,664 investigations were launched by the Public Prosecutor's Office against people for "insulting" President Erdogan: 11,337 of these investigations ended in a decision not to prosecute, 6,131 ended in a decision to launch a public prosecution. In 2018, a total of 6,326 persons were prosecuted on the charge of "Insulting the president", including 104 children under the age of 16. 92.5.251.10 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Gülen loyalists responded with an attempted coup d'état"

There is a sentence in the lead section of the article stating that "Gülen loyalists responded with an attempted coup d'état", which no independent source, either in the current article, or in the coup d'état article can confirm. That Fetullah Gulen was behind the Coup d etat is merely the Turkish government's allegations, but Wikipedia should distance itself from official positions of governments and rather resort to what independent and reliable sources do say on the matter.

The current wording in the sentence "Gülen loyalists responded with an attempted coup d'état" which implies that Gullen was undoubtely behind the coup cannot be justified. The claims made by the Turkish Government and the country's media outlets which failed to provide concrete evidence of their claims, should not be presented as proven facts here in Wikipedia.

In this context, I ([2]) and User:Jingiby ([3]) tried to correct the problematic sentence so that the sentence in Wikipedia does not longer portray Gullen's involvement in the coup as a proven fact, but rather an allegation maintained by the Turkish government. Therefore, with my and Jingiby's edits, the Lead paragraph now writes "Gülen loyalists allegedly responded with an attempted coup d'état" and is now in line with the relevant information in the Coup d'etat article, as well as in the main body of the current article. However a certain editor, User:IamNotU has intervened both times and reverted both my [4] and Jingiby's [5] attempts to corect the sentence. To support the problematic reverts, IamNotU used the edit summary in an way which does not explain why the correction should be reverted and rather used it to make questions. If IamNotU has any questions on the matter, he can use the Talk Page, not use them to revert the sentence back to a problematic form. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not dispute that the sentence was problematic and needed to be fixed. But the edit, which only added the word "allegedly" was not an acceptable way to fix it, and left the sentence in an equally problematic state. It was unsourced, unclear, and against the manual of style. It did not explain who alleged it, nor who disputed it, and the way the resulting sentence read seemed to imply incorrectly that the coup itself was "alleged", i.e., may or may not have happened. As I politely requested in the edit summaries: Per MOS:ALLEGED. Please try to describe more clearly what was alleged or denied, and by whom, with citations." and "Please add the correct information and/or remove the incorrect information from the article. Simply adding "allegedly" is not sufficient. Furthermore, it's unclear: was it the coup itself that was "alleged", or the identity of the people behind it?". I hoped that SilentResident would listen to this constructive criticism and make sufficient effort to improve the quality of their work. As they declined, I have done it myself. Please feel free to make any further improvements. --IamNotU (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously you have misread the "Gülen loyalists allegedly responded" as reading "Gülen loyalists responded with an alleged coup d'état". I am sorry but you should have read more carefully where the word "alleged" was placed in that sentence - it was in relation to the Gullenist loyalists, not in relation to the coup attempt itself.

I do not oppose your requests for further details, but reverting someone else's correctional edits just because it didn't expand upon the original sentence with more details that you requested or deemed worth, isn't the way to go, IamNotU. Instead of edit warring with 2 other editors who simply did the right thing to correct an unproven accusation against Gullen, you should have refrained alltogether from restoring that accusation against him and, instead, expand upon our edits by making your own edits and adding the missing info you wanted. The reverts were unecessary, since enacting one improvement by me and Jingiby does not preclude further improvements in the future by you, IamNotU. Simple as that. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My edits were not a "request for further details". I reverted because it was an unsourced bold edit, that inadvertently added misinformation to the article, seemingly calling into question whether the coup attempt actually occurred. It also left allegations of wrongdoing by a living person, without making the source of the accusations clear as is required.

If Wikipedia writes "Alice allegedly threw a milkshake at Bob", it creates doubt that any milkshake-throwing took place. The doubt is not a result of "misreading" it as "Alice threw an alleged milkshake at Bob". It does not have the meaning "a milkshake was thrown at Bob, allegedly by Alice". If the fact that a milkshake was thrown is undisputed, then the first statement - that there is doubt about it - is not verifiable. Editors were free to challenge and remove the existing unsourced information. But if information is added, changing the meaning of a sentence, the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds it, by providing inline citations.

Furthermore, all editors are expected to follow the MOS:ALLEGED guideline. The word should be avoided, but if it is used, it is required to "ensure that the source of the accusation is clear" - and conversely, the source of the doubt or denial. Again, the burden of providing this - as well as adquate citations to verify it - is with the editor who adds it. It is not acceptable to simply add the word "alleged" without doing so.

These are perfectly valid grounds for reverting an edit.

Perhaps I should not have made the second revert, but I don't see how that's a big deal, when the others were not following WP:BRD. Two reverts does not make an edit war. Maybe I should have deleted the whole sentence instead of reverting, but since the existing version had been in the article for more than a month, I didn't think a couple more hours would be a problem. I hoped an adequate policy-compliant solution to any issues with it could be provided. I expected that the problems described above could be aknowledged and repaired quickly, easily, and stress-free. I wish the time could have been spent doing that, rather than on unnecessary denial, drama, and berating of me on the talk page. --IamNotU (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I reverted because it was an unsourced bold edit Apparently you didn't even read the article's main body to see that the source is already here! In the case you didn't notice, then type CTRL+F and look for: Erdoğan, as well as other government officials, have blamed an exiled cleric, and once an ally of Erdoğan, Fethullah Gülen which is located in the Coup subsection of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the information in the lead paragraph may be a summary of the sourced info found already in the article. The Lead's info does not have to be necessarily cited again and more than once for it to be considered a sourced edit. Just look at the main body of the article and you will find it! Stop calling my and other people's edits as "unsourced" as this doesn't validate your reverts in the slightest.

seemingly calling into question whether the coup attempt actually occurred. You know very well that if the "X person allegedly made something" doesn't negate the possibility that "this something was done by someone else". With simple words: None doubts there was a coup, but everyone doubts it was Gullen behind it. Now, for your edits: sure your sentence does much better job in explaining this than the sentence added a month ago did after my and the other wikipedian's edits. But if the previous sentence was really casting doubts on the coup, I (or the other Wikipedian I want to believe) would have seen it. Don't you think? I am not a native english speaking person but I can understand pretty well if there was really an issue beyond personal perceptions and I would have worded it differently.

I am convinced we had different perceptions by reading the same sentence. This is something that happens naturally frequently in Wikipedia. If you want to stick to getting different perceptions of the same sentence based on word placement, then your problem I assume, since two 2 editors didn't see it the way you did.

But to argue on that and on whether the edits were sourced or not (in fact they were if you look in the main body of the article) is not the way to go. At least this is over now as the final form you came with, is better than before, and I applaud you for that. I agree, there is nothing else to discuss here, and like you said, no point in doing so. However I expect future editors to be EXTRA careful when they make any edits regarding Gullen where false accusations are mispresented as proven facts. I hope they read this, as they will be reverted without any prior warning. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources other than those deriving for the Turkish government or it supporters that claim a Gülen connection to the coup? I don't think Turkish media can be considered neutral sources, but merely as mouthpieces repeating the assertion made by the Turkish government. Significantly, all intelligence reports produced by foreign countries about the coup that have entered the public domain have established no connection to Gulen and assign blame for it to disgruntled elements within the Turkish military. So I think the Gülen connection claim should be treated as a fringe viewpoint. 92.5.251.10 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

92.5.251.10, nobody here has been arguing about that, or suggesting it was a proven fact that Gülen was behind the coup. The dispute above is about another issue, someone being upset that I reverted their poorly-written edit instead of spending my time to fix it or going to the talk page (in the end I did both). --IamNotU (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal opinions used like a fact

"Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding."

Is democracy a value you can measure? I'm a Turkish citizen and I think Turkey is more democratic after Erdogan's administration. These ridiculous accusations are the reason for Wikipedia ban in Turkey. I'm not a political supporter of him but, we fully support him as President of the Turkish Republic. You must understand Turkey is not Egypt. If we must choose between our head of state and some western liberals, we all choose our President. Unless you are a traitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.128.36 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkey more democratic! Ha ha!! But I agree that usage of this phrase is unsatisfactory. It appears to be a very pov recently coined phrase, coined within the last decade, and used mostly by establishment politicians and their supporters attempting to malign the transference of public support to non-establishment politicians. 92.5.251.10 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the democracy index, Turkey has gone from 5.12 to 4.37 (2014-18). It isn't a factual scale, but it is pretty close, most important is that it is a pretty good source. I personally think Turkey has gone back, but that isn't relevant. I want a source suggesting that it's stayed the same or gone better since Erdogan if you disagree. Maybe adding the source would to "Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding." would be a good fix. Also, I'm not used to answering on Wikipedia, so don't be to mad if my answer has a visual problem with it.

(Better formated:) I think it's not a fact, but there are good sources, which doesn't make it a personal opinion, rather an experts analysis. I would like a source on it going better for Turkey's democracy, I use the democracy index which suggests a change from 5.12 to 4.37 (2014-18).

(TL;DR:) I think it's not a fact, but there are good sources.

- BoHjalmar (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal opinions used like a fact

"Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding."

Is democracy a value you can measure? I'm a Turkish citizen and I think Turkey is more democratic after Erdogan's administration. These ridiculous accusations are the reason for Wikipedia ban in Turkey. I'm not a political supporter of him but, we fully support him as President of the Turkish Republic. You must understand Turkey is not Egypt. If we must choose between our head of state and some western liberals, we all choose our President. Unless you are a traitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.128.36 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkey more democratic! Ha ha!! But I agree that usage of this phrase is unsatisfactory. It appears to be a very pov recently coined phrase, coined within the last decade, and used mostly by establishment politicians and their supporters attempting to malign the transference of public support to non-establishment politicians. 92.5.251.10 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the democracy index, Turkey has gone from 5.12 to 4.37 (2014-18). It isn't a factual scale, but it is pretty close, most important is that it is a pretty good source. I personally think Turkey has gone back, but that isn't relevant. I want a source suggesting that it's stayed the same or gone better since Erdogan if you disagree. Maybe adding the source would to "Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding." would be a good fix. Also, I'm not used to answering on Wikipedia, so don't be to mad if my answer has a visual problem with it.

(Better formated:) I think it's not a fact, but there are good sources, which doesn't make it a personal opinion, rather an experts analysis. I would like a source on it going better for Turkey's democracy, I use the democracy index which suggests a change from 5.12 to 4.37 (2014-18).

(TL;DR:) I think it's not a fact, but there are good sources.

- BoHjalmar (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Grammar-- change "he was" to "he were" for the subjunctive below:

Change In response to criticism, Erdoğan made a speech in May 2014 denouncing allegations of dictatorship, saying that the leader of the opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who was there at the speech, would not be able to "roam the streets" freely if he was a dictator.[357] to In response to criticism, Erdoğan made a speech in May 2014 denouncing allegations of dictatorship, saying that the leader of the opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who was there at the speech, would not be able to "roam the streets" freely if he were a dictator.[357] Csmacf (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

update photo

Please update the infobox photo, it's from 2009 and doesn't show what he looks like today, a more recent image should be used, like this one 78.108.56.35 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A Friendly Aussie Reminder to All about Wikipedia rules and goals regarding Libellous material, Defamatory, Hate, Bias and NEUTRAL point of view/tone...

Greetings to all Wikipedia community,

I wound like to Discuss and ultimately remind everyone here Wikipedia's rules and goals regarding Libellous material, Defamatory, Hate, Bias and NEUTRAL point of view/tone, in order to improve this article and in doing so improve Wikipedia as well. To start I want to thank all those in the Wikipedia Community that are unbiased and neutral throughout Wikipedia as a whole and in millions of Wikipedia articles in general, having said that I find this article in particular to be Not neutral in tone and biased,

for example statements such as "Erdogan has served as the de facto leader of Turkey since 2002.[382][383][384]" although he may be labelled as such this is factually untrue, he is obviously the lawful and legally elected president,

and the fact that Education, Health care and infrastructure since 2002 till current is summarised with few short sentences compared to multiple paragraphs even whole sections on negativity, is at best laziness, and worst case offensive, events that that at most could be included with a short sentence have been blown out of proportion, this is done to such extent within this article that one can/could/have state this article is an anti Turkish propaganda aimed at influence the west perspective of the Turkish President through a negative flavour, that i must say leaves very bad after taste...

Lets have this article point out the facts, without Libellous material, Defamatory, Hate, Bias

Bellow are my previous attempts which I believe strengthens my argument and adds character and perceptive on this issue, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Sydney Australia to all....

The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1]

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. !!!

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

I encourage all of the Wikipedia community to abide by the above rules and help, this will ensure that hate, negativity and oppression are not contributing to the evil act of dividing people and communities and negatively impact world peace...

please EVERYONE delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous/defamatory... lets clean this page of any info that go's against Wikipedia, that promotes hate and/or negativity.....

thanks to all the wonderful Wikipedia community members who are educated enough to help...

peace and love to all...

The above is my request, but it also contained my current opinion and feedback of the current article in order to generate discussion, calibration and a reminder of rules and regulation in place by Wikipedia, with sincere intention of helping readers to better understand the scope of my opinion and help bring about a more useful discussion or possibly a constructive argument, and yes I do thank all previous wiki community members that helped last time, as mention above the current main article is extremely less offensive compared to previously, before wiki community helped, but again I feel it is still not a neutral or a balance article thus their should be discussion in a constructive manner of what is neutral, does the article have a negative bias ,which is quiet obvious from a neutral point of view, by all means I'm not saying it should all be positive all I'm asking is does contain a balance view or is it leaning towards a negative bias if so why? and how can we help improve it and eliminate the negative bias, if the situation was reversed and the article had a positive bias I would be asking the same questions, please understand the wiki community deserves an unbiased article, it should not contain either positive or negative bias but a well balanced article that does justice to rules and regulations of Wikipedia and so having quiet a lot of success last time, again I ask wiki community to up hold wiki rules and polices, and be kind to those who are new to community and may be still learning to use and express them self's correctly within this community... thanks for your patience, tolerance and understanding, cheers. 14.200.51.214 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

There is a typo error at this sentence

Erdogan ranked first place in the World's 500 Most Influential Muslims list in 2019.

The g should be ğ thanks.

 Done GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thank you User:Jingiby for taking the time to review my edits. I thought it would be better to talk here, than on your talk page. The edits I did were tried to made from a neutral point of view. However, this page should be about the person Erdogan, not the Premiership of Erdogan, Presidency of Erdogan or the Public Image of Erdogan. Secondly, as mentioned by other users in this talkpage, the balance of this article leans heavily towards "negative" POV. Thirdly, a lot of information is written double in this article, in different sections of the same article, or written in a different article where it actually belongs.

With those three points in mind, the edits I made consist of moving text to those aforementioned pages, while maintaining "negative" POV sections (such as Protests, Palace, media, purges, 2018 financial crisis, authoritarianism, Armenian genocide, Human rights, suppression of dissent, Mehmet Aksoy lawsuit) and even adding the US-Turkey relations myself. I did delete a line like some Alevis protesting the naming of a bridge constructed in 2013, as I believe this is too detailed to be here, and should stay in the article of the bridge, as it already is there. Also, that a information is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I'm open for suggestions. Thank you --Randam (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Randam said. This article is full of propaganda citations like memri, Gatestone Institue etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Randam. Principally I agree but, maybe this proposal should be made before your removal of huge amount of content without discussion. And may I ask where the most important paragraphs from deleted info will be moved or are already moved anywhere, if such paragraphs per you ever existed? Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The sections "Accusations of antisemitism" and "Ottomanism" are moved one-to-one to Public Image of Erdogan, while the sections "Telephone recordings and social media", "Women and demographics", "Electoral fraud" and "2013 corruption arrests" are moved to Premiership of Erdogan. Most sections, like "2018 currency and debt crisis" and "Foreign policy during Presidency" among others, are still on this article but placed on a different place in the same article, for a more coherent and logical flow. However, the part about the Georgian ancestry I deleted completely because it looked weird and not encyclopedic. It referrenced to a 2005 column of a columnist, in which the author refers to a August 11 2004 speech of Erdogan in Georgia, in which he would have claimed to be Georgian. I looked up in the archives, but I could not find a direct quote or primary source. Only to find a fact-checking article stating the claim is false. Normally, I don't delete secondary sources (per Wikipedia:Secondary source), but given the fact that the person in question (Erdogan) contraticted these claims upon questioning, I thought it was justified to delete that part, also considering the credibility of the source. Upon reflection, deletion of this part should have been explained better and done as a seperate edit, for which I apologize subsequently. Randam (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok Randam, thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammar issue

Under section 2.3 the sentence "Erdoğan was member of political parties that keep got banned by the army or judges. " should be "Erdoğan was member of political parties that kept being banned by the army or judges."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snb65 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, THATS FUNNY BUT YEAH, UR RIGHT AND WHATS UR NAME? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the President of Turkey.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits of 20 May

I restored part of Randam's edit as care must be taken to avoid media sources that are not independent of Erdoğan.--Hippeus (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC) I reverted Randam's changes as they discounted international reporting while utilizing Erdoğan controlled media and Erdoğan speeches.--Hippeus (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the revert. Let's seperate the edit/talk under 3 headers:

The Women and children part. Why did you revert it? See the above talk section. If you have a problem, reply to that first. I stated there the text in wiki doesn't match the content of the source and some other problems.

The homosexual part. Did you revert this because you think that the source (T24) is Erdogan controlled? This news website is known for not being pro-Erdogan. You thinking that Turkey is like North Korea is false and not a reflection of the truth. There are independent media from Erdogan in Turkey. I can name a few but you as a non-Turk will have difficulty to verify it. So I will name some media in Turkey, you 100% now they have nothing to do with Erdogan, to illustrate that your argument "Media in Turkey is not independent of Erdoğan" is false. BBC Türkçe (UK), Voice of America Türkçe (US), DW Türkçe (Germany), RT Türkçe (Russia), Sputnik Türkçe (Russia), The Independent Türkçe (UK and UAE), Euronews Türkçe (EU) are all media in Turkey that alot of Turks make use of. Don't act like Turkey is like North Korea where there are zero opposition news. Secondly, even if you don't want to believe it, here you can see that quote in a Youtube video. Don't tell me you can't put statements here based on quotes.

The antisemitism part. Same as above. When you said have a problem with Daily Sabah (which doesn't make sense in this context), I added sources from timesofisrael.com and unitednations.com as a sign of good faith. Yet you deleted that section to. Why? Surely you could have only deleted the source you didn't like instead of the other sources + text. Randam (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The serious level of censorship in Turkey is well-known. Konli17 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes?? No one here is denying that. But what has this to do with anything? How are these specific edits victim of censorship? What has been censored out from that? But more importantly, how is this any relevant with the edits. It's like when writing about the ideology section of a political party, you are suddenly suprised that someone is referencing to the political party's own webpage about their ideology, to show what the party has to say about itself. Randam (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Media in Turkey is controlled by Erdoğan, particularly since the coup. You should avoid inserting non-independent media to this article. You should also avoid removed sourced content that uses reliable media in the UK.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Look Hippeus, if you're not going to reply to my points in the talkpage, I can't assume good faith anymore. I repeat, I have no problem with reliable media in the UK. I have a problem with the text on Wikipedia that isn't verifiable with the source material. What do you not understand of the "text on Wikipedia" does not match the "content of the cited source"?

Secondly, it's fine by me. I'm not going into discussion with someone who falsely claim the all media in Turkey is non-independent. (I did not now BBC Türkçe, Voice of America, DW Türkçe, Russia Today Türkçe are all Erdogan owned.) As part of the consensus, I will put the text back, but this time I will delete the reference to Daily Sabah. The reference to timesofisrael.com and unitednations.com is sufficient for backing up the text. The reference to the independent news website T24 will also be deleted. It will be replaced by a Youtube video of the quotes and replaced by two non-Turkish sources. Randam (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

The missing citation for this section "The cash-flow into the Turkish economy between 2002 and 2012 caused a growth of 64% in real GDP and a 43% increase in GDP per capita; considerably higher numbers were commonly advertised but these did not account for the inflation of the US dollar between 2002 and 2012." is here: https://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2013/06/how-well-did-the-turkish-economy-do-over-the-last-decade.html Evenstar648 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done a blog is not a reliable source. IWI (chat) 18:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on blogs, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Dani Rodrik is a highly-respected expert in economics and a Harvard Professor of International Political Economy; his blog certainly meets reliability metrics under Wikipedia's own guidelines. Again recommend this link as the citation source: https://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2013/06/how-well-did-the-turkish-economy-do-over-the-last-decade.html Evenstar648 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The blog author is indeed a recognized expert in the relevant field. Citation added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Rape

This part in the article: "Later in 2016 Erdogan led AKP proposed a controversial law to pardon rapists if they would marry their victims. If passed, it would result in pardoning of 3000 rapists, however the proposal couldn't get the number of votes to be passed as a law.[130] Recently in January 2020, Erdogan stated the need for dealing with Turkey's child marriage problem and his party, made another attempt to reintroduce the amnesty law for rapists who marry their victims. Activists have again opposed the law stating this would legitimize both rape and child marriage in a nation whose age for consent was 18 years." [131] It suggests Erdogan is pro-rape and sexual abuse, while in reality it's a technical issue. The sentences that use the source [130] lacks WP:VERIFY. The source doesn't back up those claimes as it refers to only statutory rape cases without use of “force, threat, or any other restriction on consent”. Not to be confused with the commonly known type of rape (i.e. sexual assault). The sentences that use the source [131] lacks WP:VERIFY and WP:RSUW. The "Erdogan stated the need for dealing with Turkey's child marriage problem" can't be found in the source. He didn't stated such need. The sentences also have the same problem as the previous source. --Randam (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The following text that I write is for context purposes only meant for editors that want background information for assesment. It is not for debating purposes. So, this issue is way more nuanced than the article indicates. Back in 2004 the criminal code received a serious overhaul and many parts were (conceptually) written from scratch. It was a necessary change, regardless of discussions about the new content as the old one had become quite cumbersome. Under the new code sexual relations with minors was effectively broken into two parts:

1: Below the (victim's) age of 15, the verdict is essentially statutory rape and when the prosecutor gets wind of the situation everything proceeds as you would expect. Penalties range between 8-15 years and 3-8 years for lighter harassment/molestation, plus or minus some modifiers. 2: Above the age of 15 until but not including 18, there needs to be a complaint filed, usually the guardians of the person in question. This means that rape or sexual relations under this article no longer implicitly assumes lack of consent or coercion. Regardless, the article went on to define heavy punishments that read like statutory rape. The Constitutional Court ruled that the law's language constituted excessive punishment for "edge" (but fairly common) cases and struck down a paragraph of the article most recently in 2014. The original writing of this section had already been struck down in 2005.

Some context would be fitting at this point. Marriages among young people are fairly common in Turkey, especially in more rural settings and people pair off fairly early in their lives. There are a large number of people who marry (with parent's consent if 17 years old, 16 if grant an exception by a court) early on or simply have a relationship with the intent to marry at 18. Few people would consider this situation rape or coercive, at least on a personal level though there may be societal/cultural objections. A lot of the trouble stems from 18+ year old persons having sex with 15-18 year old women and when the child is born 9 months later, the hospital files a complaint as is procedure, even if the woman is 18 when the child is born and they've officially married while pregnant. Then the cogs of the bureaucracy turn, the man gets sucked into the judicial system and gets put away for a decade. Or (more likely) a disapproving parent files a complaint in the same situation, and since the crime is not invalidated by the outcome of the relationship, the same thing can happen. The old code made exceptions for these cases but the framework it provided was abused with payoffs, fake marriages, social pressure etc. This back-and-forth on this specific article has not been resolved because (among other things) the government is attempting to solve a specific edge case rather than look at the problem more generally. There isn't some cabal of islamist MP's trying to get rapists off the hook. (ref) --Randam (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is reliable sourced, to the Guardian, which uses this language.--Hippeus (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trump of turkey" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump of turkey. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Trump of turkey until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Change Erdogan to Erdogandon, because it is his actual name Susan1998a (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done this is very obviously not true. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

212.252.141.42 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayyip is dictator turkish supreme leader dog tayyip

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

.........

“Long Live Armenia and may the turks die” - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Are you suggesting any potential improvements to the article? Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

It says on the early life section, his father was a captain in the Turkish Coast Guard, however, it is not true. As it is also said on the Turkish section of it, his father admitted to the Armenian genocide, which he is responsible for the operation of the mass genoncide. His father was not affiliated with the Turkish Military. Mekrog73 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Erdoğan's Photo (Infobox)

Erdoğan's photo in the infobox needs to be changed, it seems like monarchial. He is a president of a REPUBLIC. --Qwert07 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes! http://i.imgur.com/wbd82tC.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.153.126 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Change "President of Turkey" and "Prime Minister of Turkey" to "president of Turkey" and "prime minister of Turkey" respectively, in accordance with similar wiki pages of incument presidents. Mhapperger (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:JOBTITLES. And it's unclear which specific part of the article you want to be changed. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Change "President of Turkey" and "Prime Minister of Turkey" to "president of Turkey" and "prime minister of Turkey" respectively, in accordance with similar wiki pages of incument presidents. Mhapperger (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:JOBTITLES. And it's unclear which specific part of the article you want to be changed. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin?

Turkic or Georgian? WikiTyrcaen (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

12th number is missing on 12th president of Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. It does say 12th in the "Presidency (2014–present)" section. Or perhaps you mean somewhere else? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In the info box I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been an inadvertent removal when the seals were added to the infobox - an edit that was later mostly undone - so I've restored it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)