![]() | 2010 Turkish constitutional referendum was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made a map that shows the results using a gradient from green to red for yes and no respectively and the color saturation for voter participation. It provides much better insights than the regular maps. Here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/53883839@N02/4984969584/ I am OK with letting Wikipedia articles use it for free with a link to the original page. I am not sure about how to go about uploading the image.
"Prosecutors and judges will not encounter unfair treatment, as was the case with Ferhat Sarıkaya and Sacit Kayasu." This sentence seems like pure political activism to me, and I propose to remove it. Lampman ( talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that there's no mention of the anti-reform movement here, Şevket Pamuk etc. Lampman ( talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
this edit [1] removed several (all) of the tags without adequate reason for doing so. Flags are put up for a reason ebcasue the article/section is deficient it is not then enough to remove them without answering the reasons for its place, NOR a note on talk. Lihaas ( talk) 05:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Still unclear about this. The source doesnt have article 69 and dont understand the X vs. the checks on there. Drrmd to indicate by the numbers that it passed, then why the X. Lihaas ( talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for an infobox. It has a much more limited result table than {{ Referendum}} and everything in the infobox can be explained in a results section within the article. I also don't see how an infobox is useful for referendum articles. It's not comprehensive and all it does is move information that is easily accessible in the body of the article to the top of the article, even though it is not the most relevant information. The purpose of an infobox is to give a brief overview or provide very general information of a long article. In this case the infobox does neither. – Zntrip 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Referendum approved with map}}
has no line for "Valid votes". However, the map is cool, and for the {{
Referendum}}
table I don't like it that the Yes and No percentages do not add up to 100% (as is usual in presenting referendum results, and as they also do at the YSK website). --
Lambiam
22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)The "yes" and "no" percentages in {{
Referendum}}
do add up to 100%. The "100%" isn't shown because it is obvious that valid votes are comprised of yes and no votes. It is possible to have the map in the article without the infobox. All I am saying is that the infobox doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose because it doesn't give a brief overview of the article and it doesn't provide general information about a long article. This
here is what the page would look like if the map was in the results section and the infobox was removed (the "Results by province" section would go under the results section). Note that the map could be substantially larger than it currently is in the infobox. –
Zntrip
00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That information would be included in the article and it would be easy to find. But why does it have to be in an infobox? – Zntrip 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the data, 95.7% voted yes in Ağrı, yet only 18.9% voted yes in Tunceli. Would someone please concisely explain (and cite) the sociopolitical factors that lead to this provincial polarization? — C M B J 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why was the "no" vote concentrated along the southern and western coasts? AnonMoos ( talk) 10:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a transcript of his post election speech? I read it somewhere but cant find it. It could be an external link. Lihaas ( talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Reuters article "Factbox: Turkey's constitutional amendments" seems to have some bogus information in it. In particular, the info about widows and orphans of martyrs and veterans seems to be incorrect as no such provisions were actually presented in the referendum. Perhaps these were based on an earlier proposal. Regardless, the Reuters article is cited several times in our article, so someone should double check all the facts we are citing to it. Kaldari ( talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This article previously stated that measures protecting women's rights were enacted as part of the referendum. This is (mostly) incorrect. What the amendment actually says is that measures enacted to ensure equality between men and women will not be considered contrary to the principal of equality. I know that sounds absolutely absurd and meaningless, but that's what it actually says. Nothing else in the amendments deals with women's rights. Kaldari ( talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like all of my corrections, which I took the time to explain in the 2 sections above, were immediately reverted without explanation by User:Randam and have remained so. Kaldari ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The initial copy says: "A constitutional referendum on a number of changes to the constitution was held in Turkey on 12 September 2010. The results showed the majority supported the constitutional amendments, with 58% in favour and 42% against."
But it doesn't say whether the referendum passed or not, and no indication is made whether 51%, 60% or some other percent was needed for passage. Wakablogger2 ( talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 2010 Turkish constitutional referendum was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made a map that shows the results using a gradient from green to red for yes and no respectively and the color saturation for voter participation. It provides much better insights than the regular maps. Here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/53883839@N02/4984969584/ I am OK with letting Wikipedia articles use it for free with a link to the original page. I am not sure about how to go about uploading the image.
"Prosecutors and judges will not encounter unfair treatment, as was the case with Ferhat Sarıkaya and Sacit Kayasu." This sentence seems like pure political activism to me, and I propose to remove it. Lampman ( talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that there's no mention of the anti-reform movement here, Şevket Pamuk etc. Lampman ( talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
this edit [1] removed several (all) of the tags without adequate reason for doing so. Flags are put up for a reason ebcasue the article/section is deficient it is not then enough to remove them without answering the reasons for its place, NOR a note on talk. Lihaas ( talk) 05:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Still unclear about this. The source doesnt have article 69 and dont understand the X vs. the checks on there. Drrmd to indicate by the numbers that it passed, then why the X. Lihaas ( talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for an infobox. It has a much more limited result table than {{ Referendum}} and everything in the infobox can be explained in a results section within the article. I also don't see how an infobox is useful for referendum articles. It's not comprehensive and all it does is move information that is easily accessible in the body of the article to the top of the article, even though it is not the most relevant information. The purpose of an infobox is to give a brief overview or provide very general information of a long article. In this case the infobox does neither. – Zntrip 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Referendum approved with map}}
has no line for "Valid votes". However, the map is cool, and for the {{
Referendum}}
table I don't like it that the Yes and No percentages do not add up to 100% (as is usual in presenting referendum results, and as they also do at the YSK website). --
Lambiam
22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)The "yes" and "no" percentages in {{
Referendum}}
do add up to 100%. The "100%" isn't shown because it is obvious that valid votes are comprised of yes and no votes. It is possible to have the map in the article without the infobox. All I am saying is that the infobox doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose because it doesn't give a brief overview of the article and it doesn't provide general information about a long article. This
here is what the page would look like if the map was in the results section and the infobox was removed (the "Results by province" section would go under the results section). Note that the map could be substantially larger than it currently is in the infobox. –
Zntrip
00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That information would be included in the article and it would be easy to find. But why does it have to be in an infobox? – Zntrip 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the data, 95.7% voted yes in Ağrı, yet only 18.9% voted yes in Tunceli. Would someone please concisely explain (and cite) the sociopolitical factors that lead to this provincial polarization? — C M B J 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why was the "no" vote concentrated along the southern and western coasts? AnonMoos ( talk) 10:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a transcript of his post election speech? I read it somewhere but cant find it. It could be an external link. Lihaas ( talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Reuters article "Factbox: Turkey's constitutional amendments" seems to have some bogus information in it. In particular, the info about widows and orphans of martyrs and veterans seems to be incorrect as no such provisions were actually presented in the referendum. Perhaps these were based on an earlier proposal. Regardless, the Reuters article is cited several times in our article, so someone should double check all the facts we are citing to it. Kaldari ( talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This article previously stated that measures protecting women's rights were enacted as part of the referendum. This is (mostly) incorrect. What the amendment actually says is that measures enacted to ensure equality between men and women will not be considered contrary to the principal of equality. I know that sounds absolutely absurd and meaningless, but that's what it actually says. Nothing else in the amendments deals with women's rights. Kaldari ( talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like all of my corrections, which I took the time to explain in the 2 sections above, were immediately reverted without explanation by User:Randam and have remained so. Kaldari ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The initial copy says: "A constitutional referendum on a number of changes to the constitution was held in Turkey on 12 September 2010. The results showed the majority supported the constitutional amendments, with 58% in favour and 42% against."
But it doesn't say whether the referendum passed or not, and no indication is made whether 51%, 60% or some other percent was needed for passage. Wakablogger2 ( talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)