![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I reverted because it was an unsourced bold editApparently 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 Gülenwhich 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.
"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 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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
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.
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Erdogan to Erdogandon, because it is his actual name Susan1998a (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
212.252.141.42 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Tayyip is dictator turkish supreme leader dog tayyip
“Long Live Armenia and may the turks die” - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Turkic or Georgian? WikiTyrcaen (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit requesttoRecep Tayyip Erdoğan has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
In the info box I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)