Talk:The Young Turks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The Young Turks (talk show))
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for The Young Turks:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

What is Steve Oh's job?[edit]

I realized that besides being the "Audio Guy" ;), what does he do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He produces the show and handles a lot of the business side of the show. I only know that from talking with him so I don't know where you'd find sources for that. (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

the name is like hitler youth for armenian people[edit]

there should a section mentioning it, the young turks were a radical movement in the ottoman empire which were responsible for the genocide of the armenian people There was also a debate about it in the forums and many armenians which i knew were very offend when they saw this show, however cenk never ever said anything about it why he chose this name. I think its very ironic that a strong lefty like him who debates a lot of times against racism chooses a name of a group which was involved in a genocide. --Alibaba445 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you have a news source reporting on this issue? Forum discussions are not sufficient. And we'll simply get into a tit-for-tat as the show's co-host is Armenian.--Milowenthasspoken 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed the paragraph entirely as it was completely speculative. I have not seen any reliable sources which state that the show was specifically named after the movement cited, and the forum given states other possible reasons for the name as well. CT Cooper · talk 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • obviously did cenk or the co host ever said anything about it why their show is called that?? In the forums its just users who speculate but no official. Many armenians in turkey are also turkishfied but regardless there is no proof or link in this article proofing the female co host is armenian. also in the article right now it states there are no reference to the real young turks but all what they have linked is that video which says nothing.--Alibaba445 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because the addition was a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Yes, the source gave a dictionary definition of the meaning of the word "young turk", but that at best gives a clue - it does not verify what the show is named after. If a reliable source can be presented which explicitly says "The Young Turks show was named after xyz", then it can be discussed, but nothing less than that is sufficient. CT Cooper · talk 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The re-added wording still violates WP:SYNTHESIS, by advancing points not made by the sources. I will remove it again unless sources which explicitly state what the show is named after are provided. CT Cooper · talk 20:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I thought we could make this in two steps.
  1. The show's name is "The Young Turks".
  2. "Young Turks" is also an expression for young revolutionaries.[1]
  3. The show's name (#1) was chosen in knowledge of #2.[2]
  4. The expression "Young Turks" (#2) comes from an early 20th century political movement.[3]
  5. CT Cooper is right in saying that there is no source for a direct 1->4 synthesis because we don't know if Cenk Uygur knew about the political movement and wanted to name his show after these people (we all know that of course he did, but we have no source for that, so we can't put it there).
But IMHO we can rightfully make the individual claims 1-4, as I had put it recently: "The show's name comes from an expression for a group of young, progressive and rebellious people,[4] which (i.e. the expression) originated from an early-20th century Ottoman nationalist-secularist movement of the same name.[5]"
Why we should do this: An alternative would be to write only this: "The show's name comes from an expression for a group of young, progressive and rebellious people,[6]. Then readers would click on the Blue Link and they would go "Ah, the expression comes from an early 20th century political movement, why didn't they say it right in the radio show article?".
Cheers, --Gnom (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis, putting multiple sources together in steps to reach a conclusion not advanced by the sources themselves, is not allowed in articles, even if that conclusion is reasonable, as it is original research. The second proposed version is closer to acceptable but is still unacceptable on the whole because it is advancing a position the source doesn't advance - by assuming that the presence of a dictionary definition indicates what the show was named after. Chances are, that is what the dictionary definition means, but it is not appropriate to make such assumptions in an encyclopedic article. CT Cooper · talk 13:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
So simply putting two pieces of information next to each other without making a connection (as I did) is not allowed either because it 'hints' to a synthesis for which we have no source? --Gnom (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Making a claim which is not made by the sources is not allowed. The problem is that the source does not say what the show was named after, it just gives a dictionary definition. CT Cooper · talk 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you already said that. But isn't it okay to write: "The show was named after the expression 'Young Turks'. The expression 'Young Turks' derives from a political movement of the same name." We have a source for the first sentence. And we have a source for the second sentence. What's wrong about that? --Gnom (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have yet to see a source which actually explicitly says what the show was named after - both sources given just give dictionary definitions. Based on the first source from the official website, it might be acceptable to say that the show defines the term "young turks" as meaning the dictionary definition given, and leave it at that, with no "The show was named after..." commentary, unless another source states can be found saying this explicitly. I don't think references to the movement are appropriate unless a reliable source can be found which makes the connection itself, without the need for original research from editors. CT Cooper · talk 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I was unaware you were challenging this part of the rationale. Well, I think the FAQ pretty much make it clear that the show was named after the English language expression "Young Turks" as defined by the American heritage dictionary. --Gnom (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


The new FAQ source changes things and would be a good source to use. The content could say something along the line of "The show is named The Young Turks based on the definition meaning a "young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party" or a "young person who rebels against authority". It is stated that the name is not related to Turkey nor to historical events." CT Cooper · talk 14:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Since plenty of time has been given for comment, I have re-written the paragraph. CT Cooper · talk 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"As if the name of the show was not offensive enough to Armenians" - quote from an article [3] in The subject of the article isn't important here, but that quote indicates controversy over the show's title. One does not need to be Armenian to find the title offensive - anyone with any understanding of history should find it offensive, just as a hypothetical show run by a German American and named "The Young National Socialist Germans" would not limit its offensiveness to Jews. And if that German American also went on a letter writing spree claiming the Holocaust didn't happen ...well. Meowy 21:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am actually appalled that not a single mention of this is in the article. If a group of Holocaust deniers made a show entitled The Nazis and claimed they are not affiliated but just using the name because they like it, it would be headline news, not to mention being taken down in two seconds. So why is Uygur, a genocide denier, who has chosen a name based on fascist genocidal ideology exempt? People here against a section to outline these facts should be ashamed of themselves. In addition to thearmenianweekly article this [4] and this [5] are articles covering this genocide denier and nazi-equivalent name. I expect a section explaining disapproval of the Armenian community soon. Also, the Armenian working there is a token Armenian purposefully placed there (to "prove" he isn't anti-Armenian) as a counter-measure to the Armenian reaction Uygur knew he would get from his pre-meditated choice of the show's name. (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
My only interest is to ensure that such content doesn't violates policy on what is clearly a sensitive issue, and previous attempts to add content related to the name violated policy for the reasons I outlined, related to WP:NOR. That doesn't mean that more content on the name can't be added at all, it just has to follow policy. If editors "expect a section", they should cut the emotion and add it themselves, and it will then be scrutinized as appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I edited the history part concerning the "name issue". Since the TYT website refers to the definition of the American Heritage dictionary I think it is appropriate to also mention the origin of the term how it is described by the same source. However, I also recognise CT Cooper's concerns regarding to WP:NOR and understand that the additional sentence ("These officers belonged to a Turkish nationalist reform party, called Young Turks, which aligned themselves with the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in 1906 during the period of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.") is rather on the edge... The reason why I added this sentence is because TYT is mainly about political commentary and therefor I thought that this further clarification could be considered relevant. Of course, I also followed the discussion here on the talk page and hoped that this -maybe more than factual necessary- explanation of the origin of the term "Young Turks" would be accepted as sort of compromise. Concerning the new created section "Reaction of the Armenian Community" I have to say that is misses proper citation. This is not to say that the information in this section is wrong, but except the opinion article in the Armenian Weekly I could not find any acceptable sources that would support at least parts of the claims. — Preceding Sebastien comment added by (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave the content in the history section as it is for now. On the new section, my earlier comment was not an invitation to add content against WP:V and WP:BLP. I have removed the new section pending full sourcing. As I said on the user talk page of the unregistered user who added it, I have some general concerns that it makes some vague attributions to a large group of people, and that content about the name should be in one place - the history section where other content on the name is located is located was fine. This could be expanded to a sub-section on the name, but I'm not convinced that an entire section on the issue nor more than one paragraph is justified based on the level of coverage. CT Cooper · talk 19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sebastien, I have restored the essence (but not the length) of your "These officers belonged to... " content by simply briefly mentioning the phrases historical origin and then linking to the Wikipedia article on the CUP. The origin needs to be indicated because the show's "Young Turks" name has obviously not been chosen simply becase there is a phrase around containing the word "Turks". Meowy 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I also feel that using the supposed fact that there is no source that states that "The Young Turks" name of the show refers to the early 20th century political movement in Turkey to remove mention of the phrase's origin is flimflam wikilawyering. I see no source for CT Coopers claim that "It is stated that the name is not related to Turkey nor to historical events". Anyway, there is an indisputable connection through the undisputed etymology of the phrase. A full quote from any dictionary (not the selective quote on the show's website) reveals that the phrase is related to early 20th-century Turkey. (CT Cooper - be a bit more careful with your language: "historical events" is a well-known euphemism used by Armenian Genocide deniers). There is also a clear connection in the eyes of those who have criticised the show's name. Also, Cenk Uygur is on public record as denying the Armenian Genocide happened, and through those activities it is a reasonable assumption to make that he will be fully aware of the historical origin of the phrase "Young Turk" (as will co-host Kasparian, since she has commented on the name controversy). How all this is to be worded into article content, I think I will leave to others. Meowy 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There was an FAQ link which stated what the show was named after (and what was written by me was a paraphrased quote), however it is now dead and re-directs to the home page following a website re-design. If there is a wish to add reliable published sources which criticize the name of the show for its name, then they can be added, although they must respect WP:V and WP:BLP - something which has not always happened so far. They should also be a citation to the show's own justification for its name, preferably with an internet archive link, per WP:NPOV policy. Adding general references about the term which make no reference to the show itself is heading very close to the line with both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR, and it is not appropriate for editors to link general sources to the show through assumptions, observations, or analysis of their own. CT Cooper · talk 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "Young Turks" has its origin in early 20th-century politics in Turkey - no selective quoting from a dictionary (like what the show's website does) can disguise that. An explanation of the phrase that they have chosen as the show's title is valid content. I doubt that something exactly like "It is stated that the name is not related to Turkey nor to historical events" appeared on their website (it is your quote - so I'll leave it to you to find an archived copy), but maybe they did at some point clarify that they were not using the title "The Young Turks" to imply they had a direct connection in any way with early 20th-century politics in Turkey or that they supported the views of those times. However, if such a clarification existed, its existance in itself indicates there was some controversy over the name they felt needed to be addressed. Meowy 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Previously content plainly stated the origins of the term e.t.c was tolerated by me before being removed by another user, although I though then as I think now that that is pushing it under WP:NOR - certainly anything which puts multiple sources together to reach a conclusion (e.g. the show's name + research into name's origins = show is named after xyz) definitely violates WP:SYNTHESIS, unless sources are used which explicitly states such a conclusion, although even then such cases it will need to be clear what sources and people are saying what. On the quote, I said it was a paraphrased quote, the actual quote being as part of a question and answer here. CT Cooper · talk 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And that question and answer fakes a dictionary reference by selective quoting. The American Heritage Dictionary reference actually reads: Young Turk: n. 1. A member of a Turkish reformist and nationalist political party active in the early 20th century. Meowy 12:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The definitions given here are more expansive than that, so at worst it is selective quoting. Many words in the English language have multiple definitions in the dictionary, even if they have only one origin, and I don't see anything particularly unusual about somebody picking the ones relevant to their usage. CT Cooper · talk 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
the political movement 'young turks' was the political movement responsible for the armenian genocide, just like the 'Nazi party' was the political movement responsible for the holocaust 20:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) (talk)


New sources on the controversy over the name TYT[edit]

Published in the last two days:

--RaffiKojian (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Views on YouTube[edit]

As on 4:30 GMT 9 Apr 2012, the opening paragraph of this page stated that The Young Turks are getting 1 million views a day on YouTube. I've just analysed the videos for the last week and the figure is actually about 250,000 views / day on YouTube. Although this has been higher in previous weeks, I don't have the time or knowledge on how to properly source this without writing an article on a 3rd party site. So as of now, I am removing the liberal est. of daily views of 1 mil. and replacing it with 250,000 until someone can come up with a better estimate based on analysis of several month of TYT videos. --Squirelewis (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Ana Kasparian doesn't just do pop culture stories.JuggaspieZ2k (talk)

What the talk show was named after and related[edit]

See Talk:Ana Kasparian#Ana Kasparian and genocides. CT Cooper · talk 20:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


"Cenk Uygur was born in Istanbul, Turkey, and at the age of eight his family moved to New Jersey, in the United States." This sentence doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in Cenk Uygur. 069952497a (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing edits[edit]

I'm not getting this revert to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened.Gobbleygook (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Your edits did not improve this article. Your edits injected partisan, off-topic sources into this topic. Please explain how your edits helped improve this subject. We don't use iTunes as a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The edits aren't "partisan" as it isn't making a claim about The Young Turks (it is only highlighting the political affiliation of the Young Turks works for) nor is it off-topic, as the information cited bears directly on the topic. And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. A thorough review of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources would not exclude iTunes as a reliable source and even if it did, you would still not be able to remove it as Current (the media comnpany that carries TYT) and Huffington Post have also labelled TYT as progressive. Furthermore, even if you think this is a case of tendentious editing, that in itself is not sufficient grounds for removal. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future.Gobbleygook (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
How did your edits improve the article? Please explain why it is important for you to make these edits and show me how they change the article for the better. You claim that there isn't sufficient grounds for removal, but you've got the burden backwards. You need to have sufficient grounds to add content. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It improves the article because leaving out the political affiliation of The Young Turks violates NPOV and probably UNDUE by implying political impartiality/ideological neutrality when it isn't. (It should also be pointed out that the media company that carries TYT has itself listed the company as "progressive") And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't accept that not mentioning political leanings e.t.c. in the article implies that the talk show is neutral - silence implies nothing. Furthermore, I think mentioning political affiliations in the opening sentence is excessive and inappropriate - I also note that such additions have been made multiple times and have been removed in every case. However, I'm not necessarily against discussing the issue somewhere in the article, but it should preferably include third-party reliable sources which are completely unattached from the show. CT Cooper · talk 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on context; if I understand Wikipedia's policy on silence, it means consensus especially when it comes to heated arguments so the meaning of silence cuts both ways. In this case, when the (self-described) political affiliation of The Young Turks has been made unambiguously clear, attempts to leave that out can only be described as an attempt at deception via giving the network a veneer of impartiality. I agree that mentioning political affiliations in the opening sentence is excessive, but seeing as how TYT already self-identifies (along with other third-party reliable sources) as progressive, I don't see how that adding that would be problematic. I'll make the changes for now and perhaps we can work from thereGobbleygook (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Silence in discussions and silence in article content are different issues - and there isn't consensus on that point anyway with Wikipedia:Silence and consensus versus Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. In any case, use of terms such as "deception" are not helpful here, as it indicates a failure to assume good faith. There could be a variety of reasons as to why such content has been left out in the past. CT Cooper · talk 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have made my point clearer, but the reason why I raised the Silence and consensus issue was to highlight the greater issue of the double-edged meaning silence could have. Again, in this case, the company in question has already identified politically in a certain way so I can't see why it's controversial to put that in the lead...unless there's something to hide. I agree with you that it would be a failure to assume good faith if one were to think like that, but given the context of this topic, it narrows down the reasons as to why addition of material of that sort by quite a bit, making it very difficult to give the user the benefit of the doubt. I see that you are an administrator so if it's okay, I'll put the (self-identified) political labels in the lead and see what we can do from there. Gobbleygook (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm against putting it in the opening sentence, but since the lead summarises the entire article, if there is a section on it in the article then it should be mentioned in the lead and vice versa. There is one problem with the content I can see already: it's meaningless. "Progressive" could mean almost anything; remember that Wikipedia articles are aimed at a global audience. If such a section is to remain, it needs to clarify what progressive means - linking the term to progressivism in the United States would be one way, but really there needs to be some specifics on what the talk show actually believes in. You could do this by citing clips on YouTube or similar, but I could see such a practice crossing into original research very easily, so citing commentary by third-party sources, if any are around, would be better. CT Cooper · talk 17:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a U.S.-based company so I can't see why the term "progressive" should have a non-American context meaning...Gobbleygook (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. In Wikipedia articles, all terms which have different meanings in different parts of the World have to have their meaning clarified. Date formatting and spelling style are the only exceptions to this rule, and are the only issues in which the location of the topic is ever relevant. It is not appropriate in an encyclopedia to expect the reader to know what the "American context" is. CT Cooper · talk 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Really per WP:BRD, the D part should be concluded before any new content is added. I'm willing to put aside the re-addition of the political views section, but I'm drawing the line at re-additions to the opening sentence. There currently isn't consensus for such an addition and when I made my opposition clear earlier the response I got was "I agree that mentioning political affiliations in the opening sentence is excessive, but seeing as how TYT already self-identifies (along with other third-party reliable sources) as progressive, I don't see how that adding that would be problematic.", which I was a little confused by but I interpreted to indicate agreement that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but should be mentioned elsewhere. It appears my interpretation was wrong, but in any case I stand by my current position - political affiliations are not appropriate for the opening sentence, because they are not significant enough to be part of a bare bones introduction to the topic which is the opening sentence. Not to mention that anything in the opening sentence is going to be vague and lack context - if it's going to be in the lead at least give a sentence to the issue to explain its meaning. Other well developed articles also don't mention political affiliations in the opening sentence, such as Fox News or Barack Obama. CT Cooper · talk 19:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I put the tag in the opening sentence but removed it. Apologies for the confusion.Gobbleygook (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Cooper is this edit alright with you?Gobbleygook (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for any other editor, but your proposed edits are ridiculous and do not represent the sources, and it looks like you are doing basic Google keyword searches to support your OR. First of all, we don't say "Reflecting in part the political dimension of its dictionary definition, The Young Turks is politically progressive" because the sources don't say that. The CurrentTV source is not helpful and exists only as a primary advertising blurb. It says, ". Uygur's uniquely progressive and topical commentary about politics and pop culture airs Monday." Please don't read more into that than it says. And, is not a RS nor does it support what you are saying. The Huffington Post link goes to a website about Cenk Uygur. It's not a RS and it doesn't say The Young Turks is progressive. Please read closely. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
When you say please read closely, you need to take your own advice. Here's what the Huff Po source says (it doesn't matter if it's just about Cenk Uygur): "The Young Turks on Current TV features Uygur and a group of progressive, outspoken journalists and commentators discussing politics and pop culture..." Same with CurrentTV. And that's not including how you think is not RS despite (as the user below points out) the fact that it is allowed under WP:SELFSORCE. Gobbleygook (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what Viriditas is saying, and it alludes to what I said earlier - there is a lack of underlying substance here, and these source seem to being overly read into. The dictionary and naming issue is mentioned in the history section and I don't think it needs to be repeated in other parts of the article - perhaps it could be expanded a little more to clarify the official explantion of the shows name here, but nothing more than that. TYT Network is the shows official site and is a RS for information about itself per WP:SELFSOURCE. However, there is very little to go on there in regards to political views - for Wikipedia a clear statement that the shows takes view x,y, or z is needed, and such content just isn't there. The Current TV source is currently presented in a way which suggests its a third-party commenting on the show, but given The Young Turks is on Current TV, this isn't really the case. It seems to be becoming more clear on why political leanings has not been covered previously. CT Cooper · talk 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
As you said before you are against putting it in the opening sentence, but "since the lead summarises the entire article, if there is a section on it in the article then it should be mentioned in the lead and vice versa." I hope you are not now suggesting that there should be no mention of TYT's politics in the lead which is what Viriditas' edits would have us do. When I wrote what I wrote about the dictionary and naming issue, I don't think I could've been clearer in what I meant (the dictionary definition of its name has a politically progressive meaning and the fact that TYT's politics is progressive unsurprisingly reflects that) but I see how I sourced the assertions lapsed into OR, so I've made edits to try to work around that. Gobbleygook (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the latest edit I've made is something we both can agree on; it's in the lead, not in the opening sentence, the naming and political affiliation issues of TYT (which reflects the structure of the political views section of the article) are kept separate and properly sourced. That and the general point that the lead conforms with wikipedia lead writing guidelines (in this case, since the political views section is not that important, it only gets a brief mention the lead.) Gobbleygook (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I'm convinced you need to be blocked for this tendentious behavior. You were already told that those sources weren't acceptable. You still have two major problems. One, the sources you cite comment on Uygur not the show, and two, you haven't provided solid RS about the show. The fact that you are still obsessing about your desire to comment about the "politics" of the show means you are approaching this totally backwards. Instead of Google mining the Internet to find sources to support your POV, you need to base your opinion on the sources themselves. As it stands, you haven't been able to find good sources because they probably don't exist. Please don't edit this article until you learn to do basic research and stop pushing your POV. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You are kidding right? The TYT source is absolutely acceptable as per WP:SELFSOURCE and the HuffingtonPost one is also (if I'm not mistaken) an acceptable third-party source. You also seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the Huffington Post citation functions: although it is about Cenk Uygur, the comment cited is talking about the political affiliation of the show via the people who work for the show. Gobbleygook (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't take this personally, but at this point your bias is just getting out of hand. Why did you remove this section when the sources clearly state what TYT's politics are?Gobbleygook (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you haven't responded to any of the points raised in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Didn't answer the points where? How? Gobbleygook (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of the problems with your edits raised in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Please wait until discussion has concluded. I don't support your proposed changes and I don't believe your edits have improved the topic. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is indeed getting out of hand. I think it would be helpful to forget about the lead for the moment - any content there can be decided after we have decided what to include in the main article content. The lead is a summary and all major components of the article should be summarised there - if we have the sources to support a few paragraphs of discussion on political views in the article, we can have some discussion in the lead. On the other hand, if we only have enough for one or two sentences, which current evidence suggests we will end up with, then a mention in the lead is not justified. As for the most recent additions, many of my concerns are still to be addressed. One has been the lack of what "progressive" means - the content as currently proposed is meaningless to most of the English Wikipedia's audience. The TYT Network site does pass WP:SELFSOURCE, however there is not much to go on there. The dictionary definition and show's name is already covered in the history section - as I've already said, I'm open to expansion of this section, but it doesn't need to be repeated elsewhere. "Current TV and Huffington Post have described" part is misleading as the Huffington Post is talking about Cenk and the journalists that run the show, not the show itself. A subtle difference but Wikipedia must only say what sources day and anything else is original research. The Current TV part is just an advert for the show and shouldn't be presented in a way which suggests that it's third-party commentary. Overall, at present the sources give enough of substance for about one sentence on the shows' political views. This could possibly be tagged onto existing commentary in the history section on the show's name, but I don't see a dedicated section as justified at this point. A dedicated section would need extensive commentary by reliable sources, preferably third party, to be appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally you'd be right and I wouldn't conflate the political affiliation of a company with those of the people that work for it but in this case, the source makes an explicit linkage between the company and the political affiliation of, on the basis of reasonable inference, the most important groups that constitute the company so that's the reason why I interpreted the source that way.
That said, I found some third-party sources here, here, here that lengthily describe explicitly and consistently the political affiliation of TYT so hopefully we can reach a solution on this. (i.e. the creation of a section dedicated TYT's politics) Gobbleygook (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The exemptions to WP:NOR are few and far between - really there is no such thing as reasonable inference on Wikipedia; anything that requires analysis or inference, or otherwise requires editors to put pieces of information together to advance a view not made by the source, is original research and is not permitted. The three new sources are of interest but they only offer passing mentions of political views and offer nothing substantive to justify a dedicated section. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, but I still maintain that what I did (especially the thought process behind it) wasn't particularly unreasonable, given how the assertion could've been attributable based on how the sourced material was written.
"they only offer passing mentions of political views" What if I enlarged the scope of the content of the proposed section by changing the heading from political views to politics? Surely the section could then accommodate and be justified by the the topicality and content of the articles.Gobbleygook (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal to rename the section is an interesting one, but I would need more detail on what you are hoping to accomplish with that. What information would a "Politics" section contain? CT Cooper · talk 10:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The part in the articles that discuss its politics, including its political views. As some time has past, I'll edit the article directly so that you get a better idea of what I'm talking about and if you don't like it then we can discuss further.Gobbleygook (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the listing of this discussion from the WP:3O list due to more than one editor being involved in the discussion. If any editor believes that more editors are required to reach consensus on what is being discussed may I suggest beginning an request for comment sub-section, or if there is a dispute perhaps receiving assistance from WP:DRN.
After reading the above, perhaps the lead is not the best place, if the subject's political alignment is not verified by reliable non-primary sources elsewhere in the article. As this is an entertainment program, there are often reception sections which give a representative (positive, neutral, and negative) reception of the program by numerous sources. This section should be neutrally worded, not give anything undue weight, and be balanced. Hope this opinion helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for the 3O. That said, it isn't just an entertainment program as it's primarily a political talk show so while your suggestion about a reception section would make sense in the context of an article about an entertainment program, it wouldn't fit as well here...Gobbleygook (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You will need to convince others you are correct. Reviewing this discussion shows you have no support for your proposed edits. I suggest you bring them here for further discussion before adding them again. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"if the subject's political alignment is not verified by reliable non-primary sources" My latest edits attribute the political leanings of TYT to third-party non-primary sources, so that should help clear things up.Gobbleygook (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No, you are just engaging in the same poor edits as before. Again, if you want to propose adding this content, do so here on this talk page first, and we will discuss it. As it stands, multiple editors have told you to stop. The show is described by reliable sources as an "independent news show" that criticizes both the left and the right. What you are trying to do, is dishonestly push the show to the left of center to make them seem like extremists for questioning both parties and for refusing to adhere and embrace to a party platform. This is called strategic polarization, and it is a strategic tool used by POV pushers to discredit organizations and people who disagree with their agenda. Confining people and organizations within the artificial left-right politics framework is a form of control. By calling them liberal or progressive you are automatically saying that they can't be moderate or conservative. This is false. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to the 3O as already provided by another editor, especially when the editor wrote the following sentence: "there are often reception sections which give a representative (positive, neutral, and negative) reception of the program by numerous sources."Gobbleygook (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And please refer to the comments by User:CT Cooper before RCLC ever responded. As for your proposal for a reception section, you will need to find actual sources about the show to construct one. You may not continue to cherry pick your preferred POV from sources which only mention the show in passing. Reliable sources primarily about this subject are allowed. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Right. You didn't like that 3O because it didn't help your argument so obviously you're going to refer me to comments made before that 3O contributor. Sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works.Gobbleygook (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Where are your reliable sources primarily about the subject that you are going to use? We don't construct reception sections out of passing mentions of political views. How many times do you need to be told this? Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to the 3O as already provided by another editor, especially when the editor wrote the following sentence: "there are often reception sections which give a representative (positive, neutral, and negative) reception of the program by numerous sources." Gobbleygook (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
To write such a reception section, you would need to find an actual article about the reception of the show. You can't cherry pick what you like and don't like from passing references made in sources that are not primarily about its reception. That's original research. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Not really. There's no original research if the material written is cited verbatim from the relevant sources. Also, if you bothered to read the sources they do talk about how the show is received (a la its political orientation), but it's obvious you didn't seeing as how you were able to come up with an inane statement like that. Gobbleygook (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Your changes aren't supported by anyone in this discussion. The show is first and foremost an independent Internet and cable news show. Deleting that accurate categorization and chaning it to the "name of two daily news and political commentary programs" is totally unsupported. Further calling it "politically liberal" with the terrible sources you've cited deliberately misrepresents this independent show by placing undue weight on opinion pieces. Sorry, but that is simply not how we write Wikipedia articles. The problem has been explained to you many times but you fail to recognize it. Please get outside input on your proposed edits. Repeatedly trying to force your disputed edits into this article is not the solution. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes his changes do have support. Quit spreading incorrect information to isolate that user. Thank you. (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion shows that his changes don't have support and CT Cooper has made that clear. Please stop abusing Wikipedia and its accounts. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion shows that his changes are still disputed. Secondly, what CT Cooper 'makes clear' doesn't make it a fact. Thirdly, what are you talking about 'abusing accounts'? I responded without having an registered account to begin with. So don't even think of starting insinuations. And finally, YOU (and CT Cooper) stop abusing and bending WIKI rules. Gobbleygook is right. The fact that you and CT don't like that doesn't make Gobbleygook's additions wrong. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you created a "new" account to restore his edits, and you know everything about Wikipedia already. Gobbleygook is not "right", and we don't write articles in this manner. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Political talk show[edit]

The show is neutrally described as a "news show" in the reliable sources,[6][7] not a "political talk show", and the Huffington Post source cited for using the term "political talk show" does not call it a political talk show anywhere in the source.[8] Please do not misuse sources like this. Finally, the show self-describes itself as "the largest online news show in the world".[9] We go with what the neutral sources call it and with what the show calls itself. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That article in Reuters and Businessweek is not even close to neutral objectiveness. It's an 'editorial' obviously to draw attention towards a new event. Furthermore, the Huffington post is not a neutral source whatsoever. They are a known left winged and/or progressive oriented website. So what's the purpose of highlighting your remarks, it doesn't make it more valid. (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The show and the sources describe itself as a "news show" without your additional political posturing and addition of artificial left-right polarization. Are you disputing this? Do you require more sources? I'm happy to provide them. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
All I can do is to repeat what I wrote to you: I dispute the supposed unbiasedness of some of your sources and in this very case, the very articles you referred to. Furthermore, even the owner and CEO of TYT admits the progressive nature of his shows. I added the reference to it, which is the 'The Guardian' reference. Also, even a large, seemingly well respected, progressive website - created by Texan progressives - describes the show as being 'aggressive progressive'. Furthermore, like CT Cooper wrote earlier in a response to Gobbleygook, "silence implies nothing". Meaning that if sources mention TYT ony being a news show, it doesn't exclude the fact that TYT is a progressive news show. Therefore, your references didn't prove or state that TYT is a neutral news show. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The show is a news show. There is nothing biased about describing it in that manner. As for the "progressive" nature of the show, do you believe that has anything to do with its classification? Best practice is to leave the two completely separate. For example, Fox News Channel is a "cable news channel", MSNBC is a "cable news, information, and political opinion channel", and both ABC News and BBC News are "news gathering" organizations. Whatever politics they might have does not cross over into this category, nor are they classified together. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Now here's another thing. You asked Gobbleygook why this additional information is relevant. You could ask that question about anything. But one thing is sure, even the creator and CEO - Cenk Uygur thinks the progressive nature of his shows are important. And that is saying something. Secondly, when a large self proclaimed progressive website - during an interview with one of the anchorman of TYT - defines TYT as a 'aggressive progressive' news show, well then I think no words are needed anymore. It's obvious that the political stance of this 'news show' is relevant. Now here are a few things to consider: the term progressive, as defined by Wiki (see link in article) is a classification, not a judgment. Secondly, if people don't like the word 'progressive' at the beginning of the article, then I have no qualms about brainstorming a new location. For example adding an extra section discussing the political nature of TYT. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not how we write articles about news outlets. Instead of playing the sock/meat puppet card, you should try actually reading our articles. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting really tired of your accusations and insinuations. Prove it or shut your mouth about sock shit and accounts. Furthermore, even the founder of TYT says that it's relevant his shows carry a progressive signature, and I have provided a reference to that interview, so there. So quit putting your fingers in your ears lala-ing as hard as you can. Also, one more libelous or slanderous remark from your end will result in a formal reaction from my end. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I just finished explaining this to you. Again, please take a look at our articles on news shows. We don't combine the politics of the show with the type of show. That's a cross-category comparison typically argued by POV pushers. Fox News isn't classified as a "conservative cable news channel" on Wikipedia, nor is MSNBC described as a "progressive cable news channel". Is any of this getting through to you? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a political show with a bit of news. Describing this as just a news show is inaccurate. The political bias is a large part of the show as stated by the CEO. Isay that a vote should be taken on this issue.--Youngdrake (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Then, instead of classifying, it's time to add a new section describing it's properties. Otherwise it's just non-information. I invited you help me out thinking. Furthermore, who is 'we'. Seems more like a circle-jerk to me because my edit was FULLY within the rules and spirit. So either help me think about alternatives to post the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As long as I'm within the rules and spirit of wiki I don't care about 'we', let me tall you that in advance. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
A new paragraph would work, especially if it describes the meaning of the title, which is where the discussion of "progressive" politics should take place. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You just removed them didn't you? Take a peek at the previous version and just read them. I spent a lot of time yesterday learning the wiki-edit features (posting references amongst others) and finding references. I posted 5 in total. I'm not going to regurgitate them. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've moved your comment back above my own. Don't reply to my list of sources. Please name the most reliable source that supports your view. Just one please. And if we do describe it as progressive, it should be described in a separate paragraph about the meaning of the name, not as part of the category.
What do the reliable sources say?
Columbia Journalism Review (May 2013)
"The Young Turks (TYT), which calls itself “the largest online news show in the world” and now logs 30 million page views per month. Begun as a Sirius Satellite Radio show in 2002, TYT has since branched out beyond politics and economics to produce shows on everything from film to sports. The presentation is energetic and irreverent. As founder and host Cenk Uygur says, “You know what, old media? We’re comin’ for ya.”[10]Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I did mention reliable sources didn't I? You removed them. Not all of us have massive time on our hands for your antics. How about reading the sources I posted as opposed to pressing the revert button even before the light particles on the screen hit your eye. And then you ask me to post them again here. You must be kidding me. This is a classical example of gaming the system (stalling, making the other work work work, distracting). We can argue forever, but I'll add a new section, when I have time for it and when I have time to flesh out the implementation of it. We're not going to debate endlessly, not in a way which holds back forward progression and continuous improvement of this article. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Update and shift Al Jazeera and Current info.[edit]

The paragraph on Al Jazeera and Current in the lede doesn't flow well and is bigger than the paragraph discussing them in the main section. And 3 months from January was months ago. Details of statements from Al Jazeera and Uygur don't belong in the lede, which should probably just state the current status (which is what?); the rest can go in the main section. --Elvey (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Young Turks is really two shows[edit]

I reverted the lead of the article to state explicitly that The Young Turks really refers to two shows. The editor who changed it to say that it is one show included a source from The Humanist (I found the link here), which says that "Cenk Uygur is the co-creator and main host of the Internet and cable news show The Young Turks." However, whoever wrote that like was clearly wrong. In this video, TYT host Cenk Uygur states "the online show that you are watching right now, and the whole online TYT network, have nothing to do with the TV show; they are totally independent. Now we happen to be in the same studio here, we have a good mutually beneficial relationship—God bless—and we hope to continue that [...]". If you actually watch the show online and the show on Current in the same day, you'll find that they're completely different. Trinitresque (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I restored the correct lead. It says accurately, that the show is "an independent Internet and cable news show". What part of "and" is confusing you? Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Ok, take a look at this lead:
If you didn't know who Cornel West was, would you assume that the article was talking about six people, Cornel West the American philosopher, Cornel West the academic, Cornel West the activist, Cornel West the author, Cornel West the public intellectual, and Cornel West the prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America? No, obviously you wouldn't. You would assume that it's talking about one person, because that's how English grammar works. Using the lead you're advocating makes people think that there is only one show called The Young Turks which appears both on internet and cable, in the same way that TYT used to appear both on internet and Air America radio. The reality, as my source clearly states, is that there are two completely separate and independent shows that do not overlap in content even 1% and both happen to be called The Young Turks. Trinitresque (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If such is the case, that these two shows differ in content, then that is very relevant and needs somehow to be communicated. I too would believe that the way it is written down right now, it's the very same show (i.e. same content) on two mediums. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
They most certainly do not overlap in content. The hosts do the cable show live at 4pm Pacific M-Th, then do the internet show live later in the day, at 6pm M-F. With very few exceptions, none of the footage from one show is shown in the other show, unless it's external content of course. The only similarity is the name, the host, and the filming location. Trinitresque (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Then this should be somehow clarified.Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose that Ana Kasparian be merged into The Young Turks.

Ana Kasparian is a relatively well known internet personality, but I don't think that we should list the page as a separate article unless we can find more independent secondary sources than we currently have. Let's look at the relevant notability criteria, and use those as the basis of our discussion.

From the general notability guidelines:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, 
it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

In my opinion, this is clearly not the case here. The only article that seems to be a genuinely independent secondary source is this: article in Armenian. This is where it would be useful to have a fluent Armenian speaker comment, as the google translations are terrible. It does seem to address Kasparian, although in the context of a controversy about the Armenian genocide and TYT. The quality of the source is middling, but probably ok to count as a reliable source for our purposes. However, it's hard to say how directly relevant it is.

Other than that, there don't seem to be any truly independent, reliable secondary sources that address Kasparian directly. There are a fair number of media aggregation sites that quote her, and comment on segments she has hosted on TYT. However, I cannot find any that really address Kasparian directly. Nor do they treat her independently of her role on TYT.

One article from a regional diaspora newspaper seems like rather flimsy grounds to declare notability on. At the moment the Kasparian article is almost entirely reliant on information from TYT itself, which is clearly not acceptable for Wikipedia (see WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.)

Let's also consult the criteria for creative professionals such as journalists:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. N
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. N
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. N
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. N

These are all clear fails. So, to recap: There is only one article that could be considered a reliable secondary source (although even this is relatively dubious). She is quoted in a number of other media aggregators and articles about TYT segments. However, these fail the "significant" coverage criteria, nor do they treat her as independent of TYT. Based on that, I don't see how we can continue to maintain this as an independent article until more reliable secondary sources can be found. The information in the article should be transferred to the main TYT article failing such discoveries.

Please refer to specific Wikipedia notability criteria in forming your arguments, and please remember: "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. (WP:BIO Peregrine981 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - The current references in the article are terrible however I can find numnerous reliable secondary sources mentioning her that could be added. [11] [12][13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] If I have time later I will add these to the article as well as any additional information they provide. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: None of those articles deals with Kasparian in anything more than a passing way, mentioning her as the co-host of the show, and perhaps quoting a statement she made on the show. These sources are still insufficient to show significant coverage of the subject in itself. She is mentioned in passing, as the host of segments, but there is not actual coverage of her. Unlike Cenk, who is discussed in a much more substantial way. I would also dispute the reliablity of "". Peregrine981 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think [22], [23] and [24] at least go into enough detail to meet WP:GNG as they mention her views on homosexuality and racism. Acording to GNG guidlines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The reliability of may be dubious but the interview linked there also supports her notability. The Armenian article also goes into detail about her and seems to be a reliable news site, just because it's not English doesn't mean it can be discounted. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think it's dubious still. Maybe the TBL article could count as a reliable source direclty discussing her opinion. But the IOL news and biography of Lady Gaga are not sufficient to establish notability IMO. I've never said that the Armenian article should be discounted. However, I'm not really sure what it actually says. My reading of the translation, it seems to discuss Uygur's supposed denial of Armenian genocide, and asking her why she's working with him. But that's more or less a guess since the translation is totally garbled. I still don't see the total as being sufficient to establish "significant" coverage. A genuine mention and discussion of her opinion on a reliable blog, and an article in a community newspaper. Seems like fairly weak sauce when you compare to the criteria laid out for creative professsional. We just don't have a lot of material to work with. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've had a bit of a change of heart on this. Although all of the sources do have some problems with them, I think that there is enough of a constellation that it is possible to make an stand-alone article. I've also found this [25], which is part of the "Young Turks Network", so of dubious independence. However, taken in combination with the TBL article, the armenian, and the RT interview, we have enough independent interest that it is reasonable to make an article, especially since interest is only likely to increase as TYT grows. So, I don't think it's particularly worth spending energy, even if this case probably doesn't meet the letter of the law, it is probably close enough that we have bigger problems. That said, the article should certainly be reworked. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Will Ana Kasparian ever become anything more than WP:PERMASTUB? Her entire professional career can comfortably fit into one sentence, the sources and coverage just isn't there. WP:NOTCRYSTAL dictates we cannot predict that this will change at any time in the future.--Otterathome (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree that current coverage is very scant. However, as outlined above there is seemingly at least 3 independent sources that have genuinely covered her, and a number of lesser sources that have made some note of her. This seems to be enough to create a stub article. If it stays a stub, who knows. But at the moment I don't see the harm, as long as we re-do the article a bit to ground it in independent sources, not just esssentially OR from TYT shows. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference for 'humanist' show[edit]

I suggest a reference for the humanist show categorisation or that it be removed. PametUGlavu (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I support this request. The show has been outspoken against (mostly) the Christian religion and even mocked them. This would indicate to me that the show supports atheism. There's some overlap with humanism I guess. But there are no sources about them being humanists explicitly. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, PametUGlavu (talk), I removed the word 'humanist'. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014[edit]

Spelling error under "Business Model", Cenk Uyger -> Cenk Uygur. Rimmer7 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014[edit]

The primary focus of the TYT main show is American politics. Issues that the show focuses on include the influence of money in politics, drug policy, social security, the privatization of public services, climate change, the influence of religion, abortion and reproductive rights, and sexual morality. The perspective of the show is generally left of center, although the variety of hosts brings different opinions to the air.- Citation needed tag please.

A citation is needed as this is disputed. The talk show is known for having unanimous views on a multitude of subjects including gun control.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talkcontribs) 20:17, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Partly done: Welcome and thanks. Nothing about the current text implies that all opinions are represented, just that the perspective is left of center and that there are some different opinions presented. Your assertion does not conflict with that. I'd recommend that you gather a few sources which talk about the nearly unanimous opinion presented on some subjects and write a well-sourced paragraph which presents those claims. It would be good for the article if you could also find some references which support the three or four claims already in that section. I went ahead and simply used a {{Refimprove section}} template for now rather than put a {{Citation needed}} on each claim. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No source exists that says they bring differnet opinions to the air. I recomend the part about differnet opinions to the air be removed because no source exists. They are known for having a number of far left of center hosts who all agree with each other not bring up different opinions.--Youngdrake (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

$4 million influx of funds by Buddy Roemer's group.[edit]

This should be discussed in the article. This is right on the heels on their indiegogo campaign. If TYT had known about this influx of cash during the campaign to raise money, this would be of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:1D73:14DB:F3D3:4707 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015[edit]

Hello 1:Grammatical error. Please change the first instance of the word 'and' to 'which' in the following sentence in the History section (about the 5th paragraph) (I'm assuming that Al Jazeera did the discontinuing and not Current TV. If the latter is true then we need a more drastic renovation of this sentence to create meaning.)

"After Current TV was acquired by Al Jazeera America and discontinued the show in 2013, The Young Turks production staff moved their TV studio and relocated to temporary studio quarters in Los Angeles.[11]"

2:Wishywashy flab. The words 'moved their TV studio and' should be removed because they add nothing to the meaning of this already long sentence. Thankyou.

Treeinthemoat (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015[edit]

There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea the Cenk Uygur, founder and host of "The Young Turks," denies that the there was ever a genocide against the Armenian people. Cenk has said, "The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place”[1]. Furthermore, the name "The Young Turks" is controversial in of itself. As this was the Turkish nationalist group which perpetrated the Armenian Genocide[2]. It is the equivalent of a show being called, "The Nazis." A "Controversies and Criticism" section must be created for this article. It is the only thing that is direly lacking. Btsororos (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If Uygur was noted to use The Young Turks as a platform for these views, I think adding that information here would be warranted. However, it seems he published this elsewhere, and this is already mentioned on his own article. Putting it here would be WP:UNDUE weight. As for the claims that the name is drawn from the nationalist group, I would refer you to Talk:Ana Kasparian#Ana Kasparian and genocides, you need reliable sources making this claim for you. I am not opposed to a criticism section at all, but as with anything we add on Wikipedia, it would need sources. Cannolis (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


False claiming of being "liberal/progressive"[edit]

I've been watching since the beginning. They are neither liberal nor progressive. They are Americans and they attack all the parties. I suggest you remove that classification. Please provide sources. (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They are liberal and progressive, and these sources are already provided in the article: [26], [27], and [28]. Liberalism and progressivism are broad political philosophies that are not attached to any one political party, nation, or organization. Trinitresque (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

I have begun editing this article. I am going to compile a list here of unsourced material. It can be added to the article if/when reliable sources are found.

Move to The Young Turks (TV series)[edit]

@In ictu oculi: I have reverted your move of this article following a request at WP:RMT. I suggest you start a full RM if you want to go ahead with it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war[edit]

Collapsed numerous BLP-violations. Calling Cenk Uygur that is an extraordinary claim that should not be made anywhere on Wikipedia without a reliable source. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@ProgGR: You have made so many reverts recently involving the removal of the statement the Young Turks were "known for orchestrating the Armenian Genocide", which is sourced. I know you're a new editor so I probably won't report you for edit warring, but could you at least explain why you keep undoing? An edit summary would be helpful, otherwise you are likely to be reverted for the unexplained removal. Sro23 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The real question would be why is that relevant to this article? Without context mass to how it connects to the show inclusion comes off as a unnecessary factoid.-- (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree. I don't understand what the Armenian Genocide has to do with this article. Unless someone can explain that, I think this should probably be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The jewish-Holocaust is in the first paragraph of Hitler's page and is mentioned in the intro of every major article involving him. Why not this for Cenk? A large majority of jewish-Holocaust deniers have it mentioned in their intro/lede/first paragraph. (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
PS. ProgGR is at it again with the edit-warring. (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it has nothing to do with The Young Turks. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
If a famous holocaust denier was on any other "tv show" it would be included next to their name to explain their political stance and prejudices. It's a single adjective with multiple sources referenced. ProgGR is a single-issue account that seems to just censor Cenk's mentions, probably someone working for TYT themselves. (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The source that you use has Cenk Uygur saing the Holocaust happened, he does not deny it. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mother of ... Since when is Cenk Uygur "responsible for orchestrating the Armenian genocide" like Hitler was for the Holocaust, or a "denier" of the genocide like a Holocaust-denier? No one edit-warring to keep this material in has been able to find a single source that connects TYT to the Armenian genocide. The only time I can recall this connection being made was in a C-SPAN interview when a lunatic conspiracy theorist caller attacked Cenk in this manner. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"obviously relevant"?[edit]

@User2534: Re this: Can you cite a source that explicitly connects the new media organization with the Turkish reform movement? Can you see why explicitly connecting the new media organization to the Armenian genocide might be inappropriate and offensive? Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The term "Young Turk" is frequently used as a description for groups opposing the "Old Guard," and implies no connection with the historical Young Turks. Lots of names of groups and people have entered the language and are used without implying any connection to the historical origins. The Young Turks btw were a revolutionary movement with different factions, like any revolution, and included Armenians. TFD (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically my point. It seems to be quite common among alt-right conspiracy-theorists and bloggers to try to connect the progressive new media organization with the Armenian genocide (search YouTube for "young turks armenian genocide"), but I sincerely doubt any reliable source has made his connection. The claim that the material that has been repeatedly re-added to the article is "sourced" is a non-sequitur, because the material is not relevant to the topic of this article, and the sources don't mention the topic of this article. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Note also that the edit-warriors in question are aware of this source discussing the matter with nuance and care (it was previously cited on this talk page), but apparently don't want the Wikipedia article to give a careful and nuanced discussion of the name. I would be fine with a sensitive, properly-sourced discussion being included in the article, but for whatever reason User2534 and others have been edit-warring to keep an out-of-context association of the name with the Armenian Genocide and apparently don't want to write a neutral, properly-sourced discussion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I took out the addition diff as off topic synthesis. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The group led by Gerald Ford was called the "Young Turks," and there is an article about them, Young Turks (U.S. politics). They had no connection to Turkish politics. TFD (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning the original background of the term doesn't mean that this organisation has anything do with it directly, but I think it's worth a mention for encyclopedic purposes (it is also mentioned for this purpose in the article linked to by TFD above). If as User:Hijiri88 says however, that there are significant debate/claims by other people linking these groups for whatever reason, it might be worth more discussion in the article, not less. User2534 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: Looking at the edit history of User:Hijiri88, it seems that this user later has attempted to delete entire sourced paragraphs on the article about the show's host Cenk Uygur, which actually mentions articles written by Uygur at least twice in the past for the specific purpose of denying the Armenian Genocide. So there's the connection I guess, which makes this topic well worth for more discussion in the article. User2534 (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
We don't define all the terms in every article. If people want to know what the term means, they can look it up and unless a source is provided explaining why they chose the name, it is original research for us to speculate. TFD (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


"The show's title derives from the English-language phrase "Young Turk", meaning a reformist or rebellious member of an institution, movement or political party."

Does anyone else think that the name also comes from the fact that Cenk is Turkish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably. And if there is a reliable source, we can add that. TFD (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It also conveniently aligns with his denial of the Armenian Genocide. (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's well documented that Cenk Uygur previously identified as a progressive republican. The show was originally called "The Young Turk" as he felt he identified with the republican party wing that was for radical change. Even mentioned in Mad as Hell. It has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, nor does Cenk deny it ever happening. The fact that he's Turkish is a coincidence. Ana Kasparian is Armenian. Nobody who has family members who died as a result of genocide would work for a company praising such historical event...TempTTC (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
yes Cenk was and still is a genocide denialist - not only because of his articles from the early 90ies (he was) but also because of a tyt video on youtube from december 2015 where he literaly says that there was NO genocide (still is) !!!! he recognized that armenians died but he clearly said that (in his opinion) there was no genocide - yes that is Genocide denial - yes he still is a Genocide denier - just like lots of holocaust deniers he does 'soft denialism' - a la 'yes some jews/armenians died but there was no genocied' he is no different from those genocide deniers (unless he changed his position since december 2015, but i haven't seen any such statement so far) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC) (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

TYT's own explanation, given on their website (though not completely spelled out), ist the English-language phrase. But we should be quoting this definition, taken from a dictionary, accurately (not changing "progressive" to "reformist", especially since the former actually fits the show's self-identification) and completely (not focusing on only one of the definitions). However, it is not proper to have a link to that that Republican group from the 1960s if that group is nowhere mentioned in that source. Given the explanation, I don't see that Cenk named his show after that regime (which amounts to more than the genocide) but it is unlikely that he wasn't aware of the namesake. So it isn't neccessarily a comment on the genocide (though back than Cenk was still denying it) but the name has caused controversy, which should be reported upon. Though, of course, neutrally and based on sources. Str1977 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Young Turks is a very specific term, for the political movement responcible for the Armenian genocide, just like the Nazi party is a very specific term, for the political movement responcible for the Holocaust 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017[edit]

In the "History" area and then "Radio Program" the first two sentences are repeated back-to-back.

"The Young Turks was originally developed as a radio talk show that was similar in format to a Los Angeles-based public access television program that Cenk Uygur had hosted, titled The Young Turk. With the help of friend Ben Mankiewicz (with whom he had previously worked), his childhood friend Dave Koller, and Jill Pike, Uygur began The Young Turks as a radio program in February 2002 on Sirius Satellite Radio.[8]"

Immediately after these two sentences, the two sentences are repeated. JQ1981 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing this JQ1981.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017[edit]

Take out Evan Wagner in the top line and replace with David Koller. This is a mistake. Pajama92 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done - it wasn't a mistake, but vandalism on 20 December - Arjayay (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017[edit]

The Young Turks is once again back on SiriusXM Radio, and should be updated in the 'Release' Original Network section of the article. It should show Sirius Satellite Radio (2002–2009, 2009–2010, 2017-Present) instead of Sirius Satellite Radio (2002–2009, 2009–2010) [1] Lagoonlogz (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Winged Blades Godric 16:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)



I think that pretty much everyone can agree that The Young Turks have a far-left bias. Whether it be them defending antifa rioters or that they are all sycophants of Bernie Sanders. Whenever I try to add that they are far-left, someone reverts it. Can we just all come to the general consensus that they are and add it? If not, I'm open to debate. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Forget it. This is one thing the left doesn't like: the truth. These days "far left" is to be normalized, and everything else is automagically "Nazi". What the hell were you thinking? Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Far left? Nyet, comrade, that seems like a very peculiar definition of far left. Regardless, if "everybody can agree" you should be able to find a more reliable source than a single blurb in a right-wing partisan rag like the Daily Wire, which is based on a disgruntled increasingly right-wing former colleague's commentary for the fringe-libertarian youtube channel PragerU. In order to be in the lede, this would need substantial sources to demonstrate that it's a defining characteristic, not just passing dismissal from a Russian nesting doll reference. Grayfell (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders isn't far left. If you tried to insert that claim there it would be rejected. Antifa is militant left - the movement has no coherent ideology and its followers vary in their politics. And of course Greyfell is correct. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Supporters of capitalism and liberal democracy are not considered far left in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the Alex Jones confrontation?[edit]

There's nothing in this article, about the confrontation with Alex Jones of Info Wars. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, GoodDay I have added about the confrontation, as this is a notable, well documented incident between two major organisations. If he material is removed a discussion should be had to reach consensus. I hafve added one reference, there are more though around. (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Great. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Took half an hour to be reverted - longer than expected. Not only have I put reliable sources, but the event is also caught on video from multiple angles. Clearly conforms with WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the incident should be in there, even if it was Jones typically causing trouble for his own ratings. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have put it back again. Well sourced, notable, major event. TYT would like to forget about this incident but this does not mean the event does not belong on the article. Editors: Please stop removing this information. It is going on the InfoWars article as well. KU2018 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The information has been removed again regarding the incident as per WP:BRD. As the information was there for several days I believe this became the consensus, so the information being put back was the revert. Perhaps a discussion is now needed to clear this up. KU2018 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Due to this, I will put the information back again, but I will not keep doing this as I do not want to become an 'edit warrior'. KU2018 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I noted at Talk:Alex_Jones#Jones_vs_TYT awhile ago, if this were ever deemed notable enough for inclusion, it certainly would not be in the slanted, non-neutral manner as it is presented by the likes of Breitbart. That will get reverted every timeTheValeyard (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Young Turks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)