![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
PLEASE READ FIRST:
1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
6. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
If I remembered how to put an NPOV tag on this article I would. In the meantime, it's obviously written to inflame readers' emotions and help the protesters. The intro states "attacked by police" and cites Al Jazeera. How about language like "broken up by... ...with X number of injured, a situation described by witnesses and police sources as..." If you really want Wikipedia and this page to be taken seriously, then stick to NPOV language. I'm sure many Turkish citizens' grievances are legitimate, but this page is not the vehicle for revolution, it's just a neutral document for what's going on. Feel free to link to websites that carry your message more freely. Pär Larsson ( talk) 12:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Arrests of Journalists, artists, and political opponents ECONOMIST, moderate/independent
Free speech NYT, democrats/left/liberal
Women's Rights NRO, republican/right/conservative
Prohibitions on alcohol FINANCIAL TIMES, republican/moderate
Media Silence BLOOMBERGE, left of center
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013
Searching around the Arab Nations Media, I found an article of opinion published by a libyan newspaper (Tripoli Post), which explore the similarities of 1968 Events on France, specially the reaction of youth against the conservative and authoritarian policies of General de Gaulle, and actual events in Turkey in 2013. I think the author's opinion is a best fit of actual events: a mixture of youth libertinism, and a frontal opposition of a conservative goverment. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.136.249 ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) >> It's also a comparison made by the Canard Enchaîné French newspaper. Captain frakas ( talk) 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Protests have been held not only in Istanbul's Gezi Park, but also in Ankara and in several Turkish communities in Europe [2]. -- Երևանցի talk 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The protests have obviously spread to other locations in Turkey such Izmir and Ankara [3]. The current article title is misleading. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests" title seems proper. Yes, it is true that the protests have spread to many cities in Turkey but currently the sparking point is still on the 'Taksim Gezi Park'. The other cities have begun to protest to support the main protesters in Istanbul from their own locations not necessarily to move and participate directly in Istanbul.
News are pouring gradually. And wikipedia users must follow the current events protecting their own objectivity and wiki's policies.
However if this event expands to many more locations and evolves from the environmental perspectives to another ones (i.e. political, ideological, anti-government motives), then the title can be changed.
One simple example: Think that World War 1 started today. We cannot know and make any assumption that after "the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 1 June 2013" World War 1 started because simply, we cannot know what happens afterwards. Gradually we will learn the events and finally we will change the title as 'World War 1'.
Regards, -- Toksoz ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: KEEP. No support for move; subsequent events have rendered the proposal moot. Capscap ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Capscap ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests →
Taksim Gezi Park protests – No need for year; nothing to disambiguate from.
Mohamed CJ
(talk)
04:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Let's not make a move of the title before discussing here first please, people here are tired of reverting the inaccurate doings. If you do not want to discuss here, at least consult google once. It's called Turkey Protests everywhere now. Here's a few examples of it:
Azirlazarus ( talk) 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we quickly agree on 2013 Turkey protests? (Seems WP:SNOW to me) Capscap ( talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has multiple issues, the worst of which being lack of citations for vital claims, and an obvious pro-protest POV. It has to be well-supported with citations, written from a neutral point of view, and not make arguments, such as the background section beginning with the claim of Turkey's lack of freedoms, which makes sense only if one assumes the article's writers want the reader to agree with their political conclusions. The best place to start is with citing the material that needs supporting. Then the article can be checked for neutral language. Writing an article poorly helps no one's cause. μηδείς ( talk) 02:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Erdal Beşikçioğlu in Kuğulu Park (May 31, 2013).jpg
File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (May 31, 2013).jpg
File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (31 May 2013).jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_caddesi_gezi_parki_protestosu.JPG Haruneskar ( talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you.-- Reality 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While it possible that Turkey is using agent orange in the demonstrations, and other editors have been putting up links to "media reports," none of the media sources has yet confirmed this (CNN was emphatic about this), and it more probable that what was observed was expired tear gas. Agent orange is a defoliation agent, not a crowd-control tool. eliotbates ( talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Petitioning for inclusion of the article for In The News section of the Main Page. Please support. Candymoan ( talk) 10:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
This section includes an article of Istanbul bombing. What is the link between these two events? Egeymi ( talk) 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
the agent orange thing is a rumor, and it's sourced here to CNN, when in fact it was on CNN "ireport," which is unverified first-hand reporting, and the page has now been taken down.
As the Wikipedia page to which this links makes clear, Agent Orange is a defoliant (used to kill plants, not control people) and not orange in color, is not a gas, has no use in crowd control, and does not produce the symptoms experienced by the protestors, who have been hit with a variety of forms of tear gas. Since Agent Orange has a particular and ugly history, and there are actually no verified sources of its use here (verification would actually require sophisticated chemical testing--the rumor appears to be based on some tweets and blog postings and the orange color of one of the tear gas varieties used by Turkish police), I'd prefer this claim be removed. Wichitalineman ( talk) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Where is the Turkish Doctors' Association website please? I cannot find anything on www.ttb.org.tr re the 6 lost eyes quote from the Guardian. There is no name in the Guardian for who gave the figure. If you cannot edit this talk page feel free to tell me on my own talk page. I will also try and find out whether this is true via my own links with Turkish doctors but I doubt my sources will be good enough. Thanks. Jzlcdh ( talk) 13:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah quote is from Reuters. But they have not named the spokesperson. Any have any more info on this? Jzlcdh ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Cannot find info on this point on Turkish Wikipedia. Jzlcdh ( talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see it is not on http://www.ttb.org.tr/index.php/tumhaberler/ - so I am removing it. Jzlcdh ( talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Guardian got things kind of garbled and misread "gözaltı" (arrest, custody) as "altı göz" (six eyes) - there seems to be now other source for that specific number. The actual press release from the Turkish Doctors' Association is quoted on the current version of the page, though I'm not sure the translation is correct - my Turkish isn't very good, but I think the meaning is ambiguous and could be either be "a large number of our fellow citizens were said to have lost an eye as a consequence of [these] injuries" (they are reporting hearsay for which they don't have evidence themselves) or that "a large number of our fellow citizens are [now] losing an eye as a consequence of those injuries" (they are known to have received injuries that are now resulting in the loss of eyes, or that are known to be the kind of injury that can result in the loss of an eye). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.178.164 ( talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20804 says "According to reports, more than a thousand protesters have been injured and at least two have died." But in what source were deaths actually reported? Unless the source can be found and it is reliable I suggest this info should be removed as unreliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed - please give the names of 2 dead in reliable source before re-adding. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted removal of death information as it is sourced. The claim that the deaths are not named makes no sense. Follow reliable sources. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Sun Creator. Of course Amnesty International is a reliable source and I have great respect for them. However they themselves are merely quoting other report(s) and as far as I can tell they have not told us who or what those sources are. Therefore we cannot judge their reliability. They have not in fact said whether they consider the report(s) to be correct or not. Given the need to try to avoid inflaming the situation and provoking any more violence against people on either side I believe Wikipedia ought to be reasonably sure of itself before reporting the deaths of two people. Therefore I believe this statement should be removed for now and when and if more information becomes available it could be re-added. I hope you will agree that this is not a trivial matter (as many of my other Wikipedia edits are!) and should be carefully considered. Would anyone else like to comment on this? Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I see 3 deaths are now stated in the infobox and a picture has been added (partial so it is not obvious whether the person is wounded or dead). If next of kin have been informed could the name of the person in the picture be given and the place and time? Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Now in the infobox the same picture is being claimed as a death in Istanbul and Ankara! Jzlcdh ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Turkish newspapers like Posta and Yeni Asır confirmed that the dead of Moroccan-Turkish girl and also the protester that got hit by a civil police car is confirmed dead. You can check the paper sites from internet. Of course, there won't be any official speech from government saying "Yes we killed them". Photos are the true proofs. And all the police violence is true, telling this as a man just hit home in Izmir. Thanks. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 2 June, 2013, 22:17 (UTC)
I cannot find confirmation of the claimed killing of Lavna Allani on Posta and Yeni Asır websites. But my Turkish is not very good. Perhaps someone with better Turkish can put the link on this talk page. Are they reliable sources? Until the death(s) are confirmed by a reliable source (such as mainstream foreign media or a foreign embassy as she is mentioned as a foreigner) I am removing the deaths info in the infobox as unreliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 06:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I see one death has now been confirmed. But I do not think we should be showing unconfirmed deaths in the infobox without good sources. I am replacing the Turkish language source for the confirmed death with an English language one and removing the unconfirmed figure. I agree Amnesty is reliable and I am not removing their quote in the body of the article. However they are quoting an unknown source which may not be reliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Death of İrfan Tuna from overexposure to tear gas seems to be an allegation. The claim is worded as a fact on Source #37, but without relying on any official source, or report. However, I have come across several sources reporting that the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas. And an otopsy will be done to determine the cause of death. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about the incident on the mainstream sources. (Edit: I checked again and I am confused now. They say "he died because of gas and was buried today", at the beginning of the text, then at the end of the text: "the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas.", and quote İsmail Boyraz's words: "we don't know the result of the otopsy yet, but we think he died because of tear gas") Qurshad ( talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Death of Ethem Sarısülük is not confirmed. He is alive and under intensive care. [7]
Death of Ethem Sarısülük is now confirmed on 06/14/2013 [8] 178.233.170.205 ( talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the "Official" and "Unofficial" sections, I think there should be an additional section, possibly called "Worldwide protests" in order to not fill up the "Unofficial" section. The bulletpoints on protests themselves have outnumbered the bullets on other reactions. Ajitirj ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that the "worldwide protests" section has been removed. Was this on purpose? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidothefirst ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, great job at this article so far. Please be mindful not to link to self-published primary source youtube videos which may not meet our reliable sources guideline or copyright policy. Youtube videos from random uploaders (non-official channels without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Further, it's essential that we do not have any doubts that the video uploader is the copyright holder of the video. We cannot link to copyright-infringing reposts on youtube or other sites.
For example, a random, non-official Twitter post should not be linked as evidence unless a reliable secondary sources points to it.
A youtube video uploaded by a protester should not be linked as a reliable source unless that video is linked in an article by a reliable secondary source.
Images from the ground in Turkey cannot be used as reliable sources unless they are accompanied by an authoritative statement by a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper or journalist or expert website. Images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, however, if they meet copyright guidelines--yet they can only be used to illustrate the article not to verify claims.
For more information, please use.
Keep up the great work. Ocaasi t | c 20:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the underlying concern, but at the same time the self-published sources are the only source in midst of this mess. Candymoan ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
From the beginning of the protests self-published sources have reported and circulated fake stories, including images and videos that were found to be from other events in the past. I would advise extra caution against reports from such sources, especially since the events are still unfolding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.170.205 ( talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Part of Impact of the Arab Spring"? Is it? -- Akinranbu ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is the casualty listed in the protester side of the infobox, as if the casualty did not belong to Turkey? The divisions in the conflict are currently not clear and I think it would be a good idea to list the casualties without dividing them by side. VR talk 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Headsup: all 3 drafts of a planned full-page letter in the New York Times include a link to this Wikipedia article: [6]. An incentive to make the page better, perhaps! Podiaebba ( talk) 01:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right Atatürk did it wrong. He should simply be the Sultan and there would be no problem today. He is dead now, why don't we make another one Sultan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.122.168 ( talk) 19:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs better organization. Ffor example the reactons part should go together (with interntional) not a subsection of th e date and it needs consolidating of the 1 sentence paragraphs. Pre precedent, media reactions are secondary to political ones.
Also need to add erdogan terming the protest as extremist and backed by foreigners (possibly with the investigation he suggested). And update today for the 200k+ civil servants striking.( Lihaas ( talk) 07:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)).
Right now we have:
This seems hard to read. How about putting the month first to separate the numbers? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how NPOV rules apply to pictures, but the new picture at the top seems pretty POV to me. It would be one thing if it were just an actual photo of the protests like the old one.. but having a propaganda poster at the top of the article just feels inappropriate to me. Capscap ( talk) 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the best picture would be a collage. -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
... ends with: "that the government will ensure full participation of locals to local constructions and developments forth." I can't fix this as I can't even tell what is meant by this sentence. That local people will participate in local construction projects from now on? In the sense that they will be construction workers, or that the community will be involved in construction decisions? Please clarify. siafu ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
While it was a "civil" protest at the beginning, later on, some organisations took control of the protests. The major and most influential ones were:
I think this fact should be noted.-- 144.122.104.211 ( talk) 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed someone removed Syrias comments on the turkish protests Jumada ( talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it perhaps time to split the Timeline section to a separate article (compare Timeline of the 2011–13 Saudi Arabian protests (January–April 2011)), with a summary here? I think we're in danger of losing the wood for the trees. I'm not all that happy with the "Location of protests" section either - it's again a "wood for the trees" issue, especially as it doesn't give any sense of how the size of protests changes over time. Could that section go into a separate article as well? Podiaebba ( talk) 03:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox in the lead section describes the lead figures as follows:
These are clearly not the lead figures but the apparent participants in the protests. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The woman in red image has been quite widely discussed. [8] [9] [10]. The woman has been identified and interviewed. [11].
Do we think WP:NFCC would allow inclusion of the image? There are many discussions of it being an "iconic symbol", but it was taken by a Reuters photographer, not a protester's cell phone.
I don't know the answer, so I'm completely agnostic on whether WP should permit inclusion of this image. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If someone uploads a free image on the commons, why not?-- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 11:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In the first para, while mentioning the international solidarity to Turkey, only the U.S. was written.
The introduction para [usually] is written as a general point of view for the rest of the event, mail, story, column, article [mostly for delivering ‘news’] and etc.
I suggest to re-write that specific part with more covering [means ‘international’] words.
Who else joins to this rearrangement demand? -- Toksoz ( talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think overall tone of article seems to be heavily affected by the pro-protestors' point of view, which hurts objectivity of the article. (Any second opinion?)
And I have come across some claims which refer to some fuzzy youtube videos, and questionable sources. I would like to share two of them:
1- "A civilian car, allegedly driven by a traffic police officer, drove straight through the crowds in Kızılay, killing at least one protester." The source #149 refers to a fuzzy youtube video which doesn't give any real info about the incident. Just a crowd running here and there, and a car is seen for a short period of time. And the source #150 refers to a liveleak video, which has better quality and a better angle. In this video, a civilian car tries to continue its way on the road. Car slows down to let the protestors step aside, and start moving slowly. Then some protestors start hitting the car, and car vanishes in the crowd. After a while, the car is seen again getting out of the crowd with a partially broken windshield, and trying to escape. During his escape, the driver speeds up, and ends up hitting a few protestors on his way. None of the sources have anything concrete about "police officer" or "killed person". The car seems to be civilian.
When I tried to find some info about the incident, I came across this news website: [9]
Here, it is reported that a civilian driver escaped the crowd, hitting three protestors. Later in the night, the driver was caught by the police. The driver claimed that he paniced when protestors attacked his car, and caused the incident. The three protetors, who were slightly injured, were taken to hospital.
2- "On June 5 Turkish public broadcasting service TRT aired footage of people burning the Turkish flag. The footage was originally aired in 2010 but featured doctored dates, implying the current demonstrations were somehow secessionist in nature." Source #380 refers to Ulusal Kanal, which is known with its anti-government attitude, and its alleged ties with Ergenekon. (Please see the related wiki page for more info.) On the web page, they make their accusations and refer to ReadHack, but without any real evidence, and without any real source. Actually, there a few versions of this "they aired fake video" claim floating around in the social media. (Some of them also claiming that the place was also not Kızılay, but Dolapdere).
After those accusations, TRT revealed the whole video, which proves itself to be valid: [10]
-Sorry if it is too long :)-
After all, the whole article also seemed to be containing too much detail to me. But, considering that I am not so proficient in the wiki related stuff, I might be wrong about that. And to avoid ruining the article, I didn't want to edit it directly, without talking here first. :)
I am also willing to make more contributions to this article, and maybe to more articles later. Any comments/advices would be appreciated as I am new here. :)
Qurshad ( talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Qurshad, welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with you in principle; many of us have been working at removing uncorroborated claims, but with the sheer number of edits and the number of references now over 400, some rumors remain. I searched and found an article by Milliyet (a bit more reliable than Spot Haber) which aligns fairly closely with what you wrote above concerning the first point. [11] I think that the text should be rewritten. Regarding the 2nd point, the TRT video doesn't prove anything (even if the text of the video was then copied on other government-owned newspapers) and other news sources suggest that TRT as well is doctoring the "evidence." [12] We must remember that the government-run TRT is no more or less partisan than Ulusal Kanal, and "alleged ties with Ergenekon" has been used to stifle nearly every serious news provider in Turkey and are just that - alleged. When possible, we include every "side" of the story. eliotbates ( talk) 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Your comment about TRT has been noted. :) But I have to add for the sake of completeness/fairness: the social media campaigne about TRT's video was claiming that the video was from a BDP meeting in Dolapdere in 2010. (I couldn't find that shared "evidence" in facebook right now, because the one I saw was deleted by its owner.) But when I checked 1:05 to see the man with striped clothes, 1:50-2:00 to see doremusic store, and 2:05-2:10 to see the same man still walking, I thought the video is genuine. Then I checked yandex [13] to see if that place was really in Ankara, and it came out to be Hatay street of Ankara. By the way, I don't know if you know Turkish, or if you are using machine translation, but the source you mentioned says "There were rumors about TRT's video on social media, so TRT published a photo gallery comparing the video and the photos taken in daylight". Have you encountered any reliable source other than Ulusal Kanal about the fake evidence claim? (It would be appreciated.) Ulusal Kanal's news about this incident only says "redhack said so".
[possibly unrelated info] And redhack is also not so reliable. I have just watched their claims about "manipulating vote numbers in the elections" (on halk tv), which says vote numbers were changed by using computers to make AkParti win the elections. Funny thing is, we don't use computers during elections. We use simple paper and ink. And count the votes, by hand, under the watch of observers from each party (all citizens also have the right to observe and object). And all parties take notes of those numbers, then cross-check with the official results. We only use computers for cataloging, getting sums, etc. (And those results are also cross-checked by all parties). [/unrelated info] Qurshad ( talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of Adbusters's claim that its Facebook events have been "censored" by Facebook: [12]. Anyone? If true it would be significant, but it seems bizarre and improbable. Podiaebba ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey around 640,000 people participated in the demonstrations. But this only refers to the protestors on the streets, while it ignores the protests of banging pots and pans which includes millions as The Economist saying "Millions of housewives joined in, clanging their pans in solidarity." Should we count them as protestors too and put the word of Millions to the info box? Azirlazarus ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Ottoman History Podcast just did a two hour long segment on the history of urban transformation in Istanbul from the Ottoman time. Might give some additional background information. NeoRetro ( talk) 08:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a bunch of protesters: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Gezi_Park_protests.jpg
Here's someone dancing with people clapping: /info/en/?search=File:Whirling_Sufi_Protester_wearing_gas_mask_in_Gezi_Park.jpg
It trivializes the issue and it doesn't represent what's going on. Can I replace this? The one I want is in use in the Turkish wikipedia by the way. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have semi-protection for this page? There is tons of vandalism going on. -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"OSTİM", what is that? Quote: >> Ethem Sarısülük, the 26 year old OSTİM Human rights activist died on June 2...<< -- 80.136.56.251 ( talk) 06:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ortadoğu Sanayi ve Ticaret Merkezi or OSTIM is a industrial zone for SMEs in Ankara. Btw, I coulnd't find any reliable source if he is dead or not through Google. Yakamoz51 ( talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is it the white picture allowed, but not the red picture. They both appeared on NYT. They both appeared with the same license. User:HectorMoffet claimes that the red picture is not the NYT image. Source 1 and 2 (I have more if you want) writes that it is indeed the NYT image. Randam ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find an article providing the number of the protestors in the city Sinop although I've found a local news website ( http://www.sinoppusulasi.com.tr/haber_detay.asp?haberID=664) and a Facebook event ( https://www.facebook.com/events/627542837256210/) that shows about 700 have gone to the protest. Is it possible to deduce and include some numbers from the images in the former link or from the Facebook event? I'm a newbie, apologies if this is not the right place to ask. Luot ( talk) 06:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So will both complaining parties (gov and denizen) submitt to a trial in the Hague?
Illegal sales are not final. That is old in the law.
There is no such thing as police who break laws and torture. Highly paid thugs that make gov. wishes come true are hired thugs.
HOWEVer. The protesters should be concerned that financial pressures are real. And the need for gov to prevent anarchy so that there is any "real plan" is real.
You welcome hope you enjoyed somewhat either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 ( talk) 11:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an established test for "prominence". This has led to several links to celebrity blogs and social media accounts, which sets a perilously low bar. My view is that the only prominent individuals who should be represented are those whose views appear in independent sources. Possibly the articles for individuals like Neil Gaiman should record their views on this event, but that's a decision to made case-by-case and elsewhere. -- Nixin06 ( talk) 14:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This event has to be moved back to the news section in the main page. 151.250.3.104 ( talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a stream: http://rt.com/on-air/istanbul-protest-tear-gas/
I can't add all the information unfolding right now but maybe someone else can. Events include hitting someone in a wheelchair and kicking a CNN cameraman, besides all the other crap. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So the user with IP: 82.95.138.21 has made a lot of edits claiming this is a revolution, and attributing "indigo" as a color of the protests. I've spent a few hours trying to find any pics or news sources to support this, and as far as I can tell it's completely unsupported. Unless someone has some sources, this is all going in the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen1990 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In light of the image becoming an international symbol [13], the "Woman in Red" image ( File:2013 protests in Turkey , Woman in Red image.jpeg) has been uploaded and included in the article. Any improvement or defense of the Fair use rationale is greatly appreciated. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone will be tempted to make it the infobox image (it's currently in Symbols). As I said before, the woman doesn't want to be an icon like that, so please let's not do that. Podiaebba ( talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"≈81 to 90 cities around Turkey" Turkey doesn't have 90 cities. It has 81 cities 5 Ömer Miraç ( talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hallo
yesterday, I corrected the following sentence:
"In addition, plans to turn Turkey's former christian Hagia Sophia churches (now museums) in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul into mosques stirred controversy within progressive communities..."
into
"In addition, plans to open again to the Islamic cult Turkey's Hagia Sophia in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul (both former churches converted into mosques and then museums) stirred controversy within progressive communities..."
The reason of the correction is evident: both buildings have been converted into mosques after the ottoman conquest, Of course, there are plenty of sources supporting that, and ignoring this fact leads to a plain falsification of history.
Unfortunately, user Podiaebba reverted my edit without explanation. Any thoughts about that? Alex2006 ( talk) 05:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is notable enough to add to the article or even have its own article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
PLEASE READ FIRST:
1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
6. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
If I remembered how to put an NPOV tag on this article I would. In the meantime, it's obviously written to inflame readers' emotions and help the protesters. The intro states "attacked by police" and cites Al Jazeera. How about language like "broken up by... ...with X number of injured, a situation described by witnesses and police sources as..." If you really want Wikipedia and this page to be taken seriously, then stick to NPOV language. I'm sure many Turkish citizens' grievances are legitimate, but this page is not the vehicle for revolution, it's just a neutral document for what's going on. Feel free to link to websites that carry your message more freely. Pär Larsson ( talk) 12:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Arrests of Journalists, artists, and political opponents ECONOMIST, moderate/independent
Free speech NYT, democrats/left/liberal
Women's Rights NRO, republican/right/conservative
Prohibitions on alcohol FINANCIAL TIMES, republican/moderate
Media Silence BLOOMBERGE, left of center
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013
Searching around the Arab Nations Media, I found an article of opinion published by a libyan newspaper (Tripoli Post), which explore the similarities of 1968 Events on France, specially the reaction of youth against the conservative and authoritarian policies of General de Gaulle, and actual events in Turkey in 2013. I think the author's opinion is a best fit of actual events: a mixture of youth libertinism, and a frontal opposition of a conservative goverment. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.136.249 ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) >> It's also a comparison made by the Canard Enchaîné French newspaper. Captain frakas ( talk) 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Protests have been held not only in Istanbul's Gezi Park, but also in Ankara and in several Turkish communities in Europe [2]. -- Երևանցի talk 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The protests have obviously spread to other locations in Turkey such Izmir and Ankara [3]. The current article title is misleading. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests" title seems proper. Yes, it is true that the protests have spread to many cities in Turkey but currently the sparking point is still on the 'Taksim Gezi Park'. The other cities have begun to protest to support the main protesters in Istanbul from their own locations not necessarily to move and participate directly in Istanbul.
News are pouring gradually. And wikipedia users must follow the current events protecting their own objectivity and wiki's policies.
However if this event expands to many more locations and evolves from the environmental perspectives to another ones (i.e. political, ideological, anti-government motives), then the title can be changed.
One simple example: Think that World War 1 started today. We cannot know and make any assumption that after "the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 1 June 2013" World War 1 started because simply, we cannot know what happens afterwards. Gradually we will learn the events and finally we will change the title as 'World War 1'.
Regards, -- Toksoz ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: KEEP. No support for move; subsequent events have rendered the proposal moot. Capscap ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Capscap ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests →
Taksim Gezi Park protests – No need for year; nothing to disambiguate from.
Mohamed CJ
(talk)
04:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Let's not make a move of the title before discussing here first please, people here are tired of reverting the inaccurate doings. If you do not want to discuss here, at least consult google once. It's called Turkey Protests everywhere now. Here's a few examples of it:
Azirlazarus ( talk) 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we quickly agree on 2013 Turkey protests? (Seems WP:SNOW to me) Capscap ( talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has multiple issues, the worst of which being lack of citations for vital claims, and an obvious pro-protest POV. It has to be well-supported with citations, written from a neutral point of view, and not make arguments, such as the background section beginning with the claim of Turkey's lack of freedoms, which makes sense only if one assumes the article's writers want the reader to agree with their political conclusions. The best place to start is with citing the material that needs supporting. Then the article can be checked for neutral language. Writing an article poorly helps no one's cause. μηδείς ( talk) 02:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Erdal Beşikçioğlu in Kuğulu Park (May 31, 2013).jpg
File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (May 31, 2013).jpg
File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (31 May 2013).jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_caddesi_gezi_parki_protestosu.JPG Haruneskar ( talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you.-- Reality 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While it possible that Turkey is using agent orange in the demonstrations, and other editors have been putting up links to "media reports," none of the media sources has yet confirmed this (CNN was emphatic about this), and it more probable that what was observed was expired tear gas. Agent orange is a defoliation agent, not a crowd-control tool. eliotbates ( talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Petitioning for inclusion of the article for In The News section of the Main Page. Please support. Candymoan ( talk) 10:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
This section includes an article of Istanbul bombing. What is the link between these two events? Egeymi ( talk) 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
the agent orange thing is a rumor, and it's sourced here to CNN, when in fact it was on CNN "ireport," which is unverified first-hand reporting, and the page has now been taken down.
As the Wikipedia page to which this links makes clear, Agent Orange is a defoliant (used to kill plants, not control people) and not orange in color, is not a gas, has no use in crowd control, and does not produce the symptoms experienced by the protestors, who have been hit with a variety of forms of tear gas. Since Agent Orange has a particular and ugly history, and there are actually no verified sources of its use here (verification would actually require sophisticated chemical testing--the rumor appears to be based on some tweets and blog postings and the orange color of one of the tear gas varieties used by Turkish police), I'd prefer this claim be removed. Wichitalineman ( talk) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Where is the Turkish Doctors' Association website please? I cannot find anything on www.ttb.org.tr re the 6 lost eyes quote from the Guardian. There is no name in the Guardian for who gave the figure. If you cannot edit this talk page feel free to tell me on my own talk page. I will also try and find out whether this is true via my own links with Turkish doctors but I doubt my sources will be good enough. Thanks. Jzlcdh ( talk) 13:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah quote is from Reuters. But they have not named the spokesperson. Any have any more info on this? Jzlcdh ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Cannot find info on this point on Turkish Wikipedia. Jzlcdh ( talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see it is not on http://www.ttb.org.tr/index.php/tumhaberler/ - so I am removing it. Jzlcdh ( talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Guardian got things kind of garbled and misread "gözaltı" (arrest, custody) as "altı göz" (six eyes) - there seems to be now other source for that specific number. The actual press release from the Turkish Doctors' Association is quoted on the current version of the page, though I'm not sure the translation is correct - my Turkish isn't very good, but I think the meaning is ambiguous and could be either be "a large number of our fellow citizens were said to have lost an eye as a consequence of [these] injuries" (they are reporting hearsay for which they don't have evidence themselves) or that "a large number of our fellow citizens are [now] losing an eye as a consequence of those injuries" (they are known to have received injuries that are now resulting in the loss of eyes, or that are known to be the kind of injury that can result in the loss of an eye). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.178.164 ( talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20804 says "According to reports, more than a thousand protesters have been injured and at least two have died." But in what source were deaths actually reported? Unless the source can be found and it is reliable I suggest this info should be removed as unreliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed - please give the names of 2 dead in reliable source before re-adding. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted removal of death information as it is sourced. The claim that the deaths are not named makes no sense. Follow reliable sources. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Sun Creator. Of course Amnesty International is a reliable source and I have great respect for them. However they themselves are merely quoting other report(s) and as far as I can tell they have not told us who or what those sources are. Therefore we cannot judge their reliability. They have not in fact said whether they consider the report(s) to be correct or not. Given the need to try to avoid inflaming the situation and provoking any more violence against people on either side I believe Wikipedia ought to be reasonably sure of itself before reporting the deaths of two people. Therefore I believe this statement should be removed for now and when and if more information becomes available it could be re-added. I hope you will agree that this is not a trivial matter (as many of my other Wikipedia edits are!) and should be carefully considered. Would anyone else like to comment on this? Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I see 3 deaths are now stated in the infobox and a picture has been added (partial so it is not obvious whether the person is wounded or dead). If next of kin have been informed could the name of the person in the picture be given and the place and time? Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Now in the infobox the same picture is being claimed as a death in Istanbul and Ankara! Jzlcdh ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Turkish newspapers like Posta and Yeni Asır confirmed that the dead of Moroccan-Turkish girl and also the protester that got hit by a civil police car is confirmed dead. You can check the paper sites from internet. Of course, there won't be any official speech from government saying "Yes we killed them". Photos are the true proofs. And all the police violence is true, telling this as a man just hit home in Izmir. Thanks. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 2 June, 2013, 22:17 (UTC)
I cannot find confirmation of the claimed killing of Lavna Allani on Posta and Yeni Asır websites. But my Turkish is not very good. Perhaps someone with better Turkish can put the link on this talk page. Are they reliable sources? Until the death(s) are confirmed by a reliable source (such as mainstream foreign media or a foreign embassy as she is mentioned as a foreigner) I am removing the deaths info in the infobox as unreliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 06:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I see one death has now been confirmed. But I do not think we should be showing unconfirmed deaths in the infobox without good sources. I am replacing the Turkish language source for the confirmed death with an English language one and removing the unconfirmed figure. I agree Amnesty is reliable and I am not removing their quote in the body of the article. However they are quoting an unknown source which may not be reliable. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Death of İrfan Tuna from overexposure to tear gas seems to be an allegation. The claim is worded as a fact on Source #37, but without relying on any official source, or report. However, I have come across several sources reporting that the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas. And an otopsy will be done to determine the cause of death. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about the incident on the mainstream sources. (Edit: I checked again and I am confused now. They say "he died because of gas and was buried today", at the beginning of the text, then at the end of the text: "the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas.", and quote İsmail Boyraz's words: "we don't know the result of the otopsy yet, but we think he died because of tear gas") Qurshad ( talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Death of Ethem Sarısülük is not confirmed. He is alive and under intensive care. [7]
Death of Ethem Sarısülük is now confirmed on 06/14/2013 [8] 178.233.170.205 ( talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the "Official" and "Unofficial" sections, I think there should be an additional section, possibly called "Worldwide protests" in order to not fill up the "Unofficial" section. The bulletpoints on protests themselves have outnumbered the bullets on other reactions. Ajitirj ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that the "worldwide protests" section has been removed. Was this on purpose? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidothefirst ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, great job at this article so far. Please be mindful not to link to self-published primary source youtube videos which may not meet our reliable sources guideline or copyright policy. Youtube videos from random uploaders (non-official channels without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Further, it's essential that we do not have any doubts that the video uploader is the copyright holder of the video. We cannot link to copyright-infringing reposts on youtube or other sites.
For example, a random, non-official Twitter post should not be linked as evidence unless a reliable secondary sources points to it.
A youtube video uploaded by a protester should not be linked as a reliable source unless that video is linked in an article by a reliable secondary source.
Images from the ground in Turkey cannot be used as reliable sources unless they are accompanied by an authoritative statement by a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper or journalist or expert website. Images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, however, if they meet copyright guidelines--yet they can only be used to illustrate the article not to verify claims.
For more information, please use.
Keep up the great work. Ocaasi t | c 20:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the underlying concern, but at the same time the self-published sources are the only source in midst of this mess. Candymoan ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
From the beginning of the protests self-published sources have reported and circulated fake stories, including images and videos that were found to be from other events in the past. I would advise extra caution against reports from such sources, especially since the events are still unfolding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.170.205 ( talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Part of Impact of the Arab Spring"? Is it? -- Akinranbu ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is the casualty listed in the protester side of the infobox, as if the casualty did not belong to Turkey? The divisions in the conflict are currently not clear and I think it would be a good idea to list the casualties without dividing them by side. VR talk 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Headsup: all 3 drafts of a planned full-page letter in the New York Times include a link to this Wikipedia article: [6]. An incentive to make the page better, perhaps! Podiaebba ( talk) 01:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right Atatürk did it wrong. He should simply be the Sultan and there would be no problem today. He is dead now, why don't we make another one Sultan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.122.168 ( talk) 19:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs better organization. Ffor example the reactons part should go together (with interntional) not a subsection of th e date and it needs consolidating of the 1 sentence paragraphs. Pre precedent, media reactions are secondary to political ones.
Also need to add erdogan terming the protest as extremist and backed by foreigners (possibly with the investigation he suggested). And update today for the 200k+ civil servants striking.( Lihaas ( talk) 07:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)).
Right now we have:
This seems hard to read. How about putting the month first to separate the numbers? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how NPOV rules apply to pictures, but the new picture at the top seems pretty POV to me. It would be one thing if it were just an actual photo of the protests like the old one.. but having a propaganda poster at the top of the article just feels inappropriate to me. Capscap ( talk) 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the best picture would be a collage. -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
... ends with: "that the government will ensure full participation of locals to local constructions and developments forth." I can't fix this as I can't even tell what is meant by this sentence. That local people will participate in local construction projects from now on? In the sense that they will be construction workers, or that the community will be involved in construction decisions? Please clarify. siafu ( talk) 00:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
While it was a "civil" protest at the beginning, later on, some organisations took control of the protests. The major and most influential ones were:
I think this fact should be noted.-- 144.122.104.211 ( talk) 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed someone removed Syrias comments on the turkish protests Jumada ( talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it perhaps time to split the Timeline section to a separate article (compare Timeline of the 2011–13 Saudi Arabian protests (January–April 2011)), with a summary here? I think we're in danger of losing the wood for the trees. I'm not all that happy with the "Location of protests" section either - it's again a "wood for the trees" issue, especially as it doesn't give any sense of how the size of protests changes over time. Could that section go into a separate article as well? Podiaebba ( talk) 03:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox in the lead section describes the lead figures as follows:
These are clearly not the lead figures but the apparent participants in the protests. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The woman in red image has been quite widely discussed. [8] [9] [10]. The woman has been identified and interviewed. [11].
Do we think WP:NFCC would allow inclusion of the image? There are many discussions of it being an "iconic symbol", but it was taken by a Reuters photographer, not a protester's cell phone.
I don't know the answer, so I'm completely agnostic on whether WP should permit inclusion of this image. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If someone uploads a free image on the commons, why not?-- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 11:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In the first para, while mentioning the international solidarity to Turkey, only the U.S. was written.
The introduction para [usually] is written as a general point of view for the rest of the event, mail, story, column, article [mostly for delivering ‘news’] and etc.
I suggest to re-write that specific part with more covering [means ‘international’] words.
Who else joins to this rearrangement demand? -- Toksoz ( talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think overall tone of article seems to be heavily affected by the pro-protestors' point of view, which hurts objectivity of the article. (Any second opinion?)
And I have come across some claims which refer to some fuzzy youtube videos, and questionable sources. I would like to share two of them:
1- "A civilian car, allegedly driven by a traffic police officer, drove straight through the crowds in Kızılay, killing at least one protester." The source #149 refers to a fuzzy youtube video which doesn't give any real info about the incident. Just a crowd running here and there, and a car is seen for a short period of time. And the source #150 refers to a liveleak video, which has better quality and a better angle. In this video, a civilian car tries to continue its way on the road. Car slows down to let the protestors step aside, and start moving slowly. Then some protestors start hitting the car, and car vanishes in the crowd. After a while, the car is seen again getting out of the crowd with a partially broken windshield, and trying to escape. During his escape, the driver speeds up, and ends up hitting a few protestors on his way. None of the sources have anything concrete about "police officer" or "killed person". The car seems to be civilian.
When I tried to find some info about the incident, I came across this news website: [9]
Here, it is reported that a civilian driver escaped the crowd, hitting three protestors. Later in the night, the driver was caught by the police. The driver claimed that he paniced when protestors attacked his car, and caused the incident. The three protetors, who were slightly injured, were taken to hospital.
2- "On June 5 Turkish public broadcasting service TRT aired footage of people burning the Turkish flag. The footage was originally aired in 2010 but featured doctored dates, implying the current demonstrations were somehow secessionist in nature." Source #380 refers to Ulusal Kanal, which is known with its anti-government attitude, and its alleged ties with Ergenekon. (Please see the related wiki page for more info.) On the web page, they make their accusations and refer to ReadHack, but without any real evidence, and without any real source. Actually, there a few versions of this "they aired fake video" claim floating around in the social media. (Some of them also claiming that the place was also not Kızılay, but Dolapdere).
After those accusations, TRT revealed the whole video, which proves itself to be valid: [10]
-Sorry if it is too long :)-
After all, the whole article also seemed to be containing too much detail to me. But, considering that I am not so proficient in the wiki related stuff, I might be wrong about that. And to avoid ruining the article, I didn't want to edit it directly, without talking here first. :)
I am also willing to make more contributions to this article, and maybe to more articles later. Any comments/advices would be appreciated as I am new here. :)
Qurshad ( talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Qurshad, welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with you in principle; many of us have been working at removing uncorroborated claims, but with the sheer number of edits and the number of references now over 400, some rumors remain. I searched and found an article by Milliyet (a bit more reliable than Spot Haber) which aligns fairly closely with what you wrote above concerning the first point. [11] I think that the text should be rewritten. Regarding the 2nd point, the TRT video doesn't prove anything (even if the text of the video was then copied on other government-owned newspapers) and other news sources suggest that TRT as well is doctoring the "evidence." [12] We must remember that the government-run TRT is no more or less partisan than Ulusal Kanal, and "alleged ties with Ergenekon" has been used to stifle nearly every serious news provider in Turkey and are just that - alleged. When possible, we include every "side" of the story. eliotbates ( talk) 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Your comment about TRT has been noted. :) But I have to add for the sake of completeness/fairness: the social media campaigne about TRT's video was claiming that the video was from a BDP meeting in Dolapdere in 2010. (I couldn't find that shared "evidence" in facebook right now, because the one I saw was deleted by its owner.) But when I checked 1:05 to see the man with striped clothes, 1:50-2:00 to see doremusic store, and 2:05-2:10 to see the same man still walking, I thought the video is genuine. Then I checked yandex [13] to see if that place was really in Ankara, and it came out to be Hatay street of Ankara. By the way, I don't know if you know Turkish, or if you are using machine translation, but the source you mentioned says "There were rumors about TRT's video on social media, so TRT published a photo gallery comparing the video and the photos taken in daylight". Have you encountered any reliable source other than Ulusal Kanal about the fake evidence claim? (It would be appreciated.) Ulusal Kanal's news about this incident only says "redhack said so".
[possibly unrelated info] And redhack is also not so reliable. I have just watched their claims about "manipulating vote numbers in the elections" (on halk tv), which says vote numbers were changed by using computers to make AkParti win the elections. Funny thing is, we don't use computers during elections. We use simple paper and ink. And count the votes, by hand, under the watch of observers from each party (all citizens also have the right to observe and object). And all parties take notes of those numbers, then cross-check with the official results. We only use computers for cataloging, getting sums, etc. (And those results are also cross-checked by all parties). [/unrelated info] Qurshad ( talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of Adbusters's claim that its Facebook events have been "censored" by Facebook: [12]. Anyone? If true it would be significant, but it seems bizarre and improbable. Podiaebba ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey around 640,000 people participated in the demonstrations. But this only refers to the protestors on the streets, while it ignores the protests of banging pots and pans which includes millions as The Economist saying "Millions of housewives joined in, clanging their pans in solidarity." Should we count them as protestors too and put the word of Millions to the info box? Azirlazarus ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Ottoman History Podcast just did a two hour long segment on the history of urban transformation in Istanbul from the Ottoman time. Might give some additional background information. NeoRetro ( talk) 08:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a bunch of protesters: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Gezi_Park_protests.jpg
Here's someone dancing with people clapping: /info/en/?search=File:Whirling_Sufi_Protester_wearing_gas_mask_in_Gezi_Park.jpg
It trivializes the issue and it doesn't represent what's going on. Can I replace this? The one I want is in use in the Turkish wikipedia by the way. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have semi-protection for this page? There is tons of vandalism going on. -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"OSTİM", what is that? Quote: >> Ethem Sarısülük, the 26 year old OSTİM Human rights activist died on June 2...<< -- 80.136.56.251 ( talk) 06:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ortadoğu Sanayi ve Ticaret Merkezi or OSTIM is a industrial zone for SMEs in Ankara. Btw, I coulnd't find any reliable source if he is dead or not through Google. Yakamoz51 ( talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is it the white picture allowed, but not the red picture. They both appeared on NYT. They both appeared with the same license. User:HectorMoffet claimes that the red picture is not the NYT image. Source 1 and 2 (I have more if you want) writes that it is indeed the NYT image. Randam ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find an article providing the number of the protestors in the city Sinop although I've found a local news website ( http://www.sinoppusulasi.com.tr/haber_detay.asp?haberID=664) and a Facebook event ( https://www.facebook.com/events/627542837256210/) that shows about 700 have gone to the protest. Is it possible to deduce and include some numbers from the images in the former link or from the Facebook event? I'm a newbie, apologies if this is not the right place to ask. Luot ( talk) 06:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So will both complaining parties (gov and denizen) submitt to a trial in the Hague?
Illegal sales are not final. That is old in the law.
There is no such thing as police who break laws and torture. Highly paid thugs that make gov. wishes come true are hired thugs.
HOWEVer. The protesters should be concerned that financial pressures are real. And the need for gov to prevent anarchy so that there is any "real plan" is real.
You welcome hope you enjoyed somewhat either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 ( talk) 11:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an established test for "prominence". This has led to several links to celebrity blogs and social media accounts, which sets a perilously low bar. My view is that the only prominent individuals who should be represented are those whose views appear in independent sources. Possibly the articles for individuals like Neil Gaiman should record their views on this event, but that's a decision to made case-by-case and elsewhere. -- Nixin06 ( talk) 14:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This event has to be moved back to the news section in the main page. 151.250.3.104 ( talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a stream: http://rt.com/on-air/istanbul-protest-tear-gas/
I can't add all the information unfolding right now but maybe someone else can. Events include hitting someone in a wheelchair and kicking a CNN cameraman, besides all the other crap. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So the user with IP: 82.95.138.21 has made a lot of edits claiming this is a revolution, and attributing "indigo" as a color of the protests. I've spent a few hours trying to find any pics or news sources to support this, and as far as I can tell it's completely unsupported. Unless someone has some sources, this is all going in the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen1990 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In light of the image becoming an international symbol [13], the "Woman in Red" image ( File:2013 protests in Turkey , Woman in Red image.jpeg) has been uploaded and included in the article. Any improvement or defense of the Fair use rationale is greatly appreciated. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone will be tempted to make it the infobox image (it's currently in Symbols). As I said before, the woman doesn't want to be an icon like that, so please let's not do that. Podiaebba ( talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"≈81 to 90 cities around Turkey" Turkey doesn't have 90 cities. It has 81 cities 5 Ömer Miraç ( talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hallo
yesterday, I corrected the following sentence:
"In addition, plans to turn Turkey's former christian Hagia Sophia churches (now museums) in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul into mosques stirred controversy within progressive communities..."
into
"In addition, plans to open again to the Islamic cult Turkey's Hagia Sophia in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul (both former churches converted into mosques and then museums) stirred controversy within progressive communities..."
The reason of the correction is evident: both buildings have been converted into mosques after the ottoman conquest, Of course, there are plenty of sources supporting that, and ignoring this fact leads to a plain falsification of history.
Unfortunately, user Podiaebba reverted my edit without explanation. Any thoughts about that? Alex2006 ( talk) 05:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is notable enough to add to the article or even have its own article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)