Jump to content

Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Notice about gas attack

I removed a sentence containing the following after a revert war by User:Inspectortr and User:E4024: "Erdoğan government used chemical gas against Turkish citizens celebrating the Republic Day of Turkey in Turkey's capital Ankara on 29 October 2012." According to CNN they used tear gas, (which is a chemical gas) which is commonly used to control crowds in cases such as when demonstrations go completely out of control (although I'm not implying that this was/wasn't the case here). The sentence as it read could just as easily hint at Erdogan being personally responsible for the gas attack, as well as hinting towards other (more deadly?) gases being used; and gave little context. CNN reports that this happened when the political opposition staged an illegal demonstration against the government, so the sentence needs to be expanded before it can be included. Please discuss the issue here before you reintroduce it. Bjelleklang - talk 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was, as it is referenced above "Erdoğan government used chemical gas against Turkish citizens celebrating the Republic Day of Turkey in Turkey's capital Ankara on 29 October 2012." Tear gas is a type of "chemical weapon" actually, but since it is not a very lethal one, I used the statement "chemical gas". If I wanted to hint other more deadly gases, I would say "chemical weapon" which is also correct, but I did not. CNN does not report "this happened when the political opposition staged an illegal demonstration against the government". People should not write their personal opinions as facts referencing news pages. To explain better, I should add that the Republic Day of Turkey is the mosy important national day of Turkey Republic, like the Independence Day of the USA. The Republic Day is not a demonstration against the government. --Inspectortr (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
CNN writes "Tensions mounted ahead of Monday's Republic Day holiday, when the governor of Ankara banned the planned march organized by secularist opposition groups that are deeply critical of Turkey's Islamist-rooted government" (italics are mine). This makes the march illegal as I interpret it. And why not just use the word "tear gas", which is more correct than "chemical gas", and also what CNN writes? You had an edit war going when I reverted, and reinserting the paragraph without discussion only serves to continue the edit war. The issue as such isn't relevant for the article, as
  • Erdoğan didn't order the police personally to use tear gas
  • Erdoğan didn't ban the march
  • Using tear gas for riot control isn't uncommon in most parts of the world
  • CNN and the turkish sources (as far as I understand through Google translate) doesn't say if the demonstration got out of hand or if the police attacked a peaceful demonstration.
However, as this incident appears to have been reported worldwide I wouldn't mind a mention of this being included in Human rights in Turkey. Bjelleklang - talk 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Other than presenting some other negative behaviours, the user who began to call themselves Inspectortr in the midst of this article is also a liar (I know what I am saying and will prove it below)as may be seen from this diff where the,y as an IP (confirmed by Checkuser DeltaQuad --see his TP- to be Inspectortr) used the words "chemical weapons" but had to step back after my decisive revert(s). As you notice, they will not reply to why they do not do the same (I am not referring to lying, I am referring to the sensitivity on tear gas) in the articles of the leaders or governments of other world countries -like Spain, Italy, Greece etc- because that would reveal the reason of their not-neutral POV; some kind of hate towards a certain country and its people. (If I am wrong tell me, Inspector "TR".) --E4024 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, it was pepper spray. Definitely not a chemical weapon. --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Biological weapon? ;-) --89.204.154.93 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, no. Pepper spray is biological gas! *LOL*


From the article of List of national independence days;

| Turkey |October 29 | Turkey becomes a republic following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire Turkish War of Independence in 1923. --Inspectortr (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cezmi Yurtsever

So it's impossible for me to accept his claims are reliable. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Erdoğan

This statement has nothing to back it up.

When I search on the internet, he's not even listed in the top 10. Can this be removed, corrected or a reference included, please? (possibly the whole sentence, including his son's possessions, etc.)... 

Thank you - AnnieBl (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC) AnnieBl

Erdoğan is the highest paid politician in the world earning $989,000 a month and his personnel assets being over $950 Million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieBl (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed partisan, unsupported and justly flagged ¶ from lede.

Erdoğan has been widely considered to be one of the most influential Turkish leaders of the Republican era since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk[citation needed]. Under his premiership, the country continued to grow economically and consolidate its position as a regional power with global ambitions[citation needed]. His foreign policy vision is claimed to rest on the Neo-Ottomanism, the policy according to which, Turkey should maintain and increase its presence in the lands formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire[citation needed].

The above is inappropriate at this point in this persons career, wrong tone for Wikipedia, etc. etc. Lycurgus (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC profile

BBC profile here here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 protest should be added to introduction

2013 protests in Turkey is the biggest challange to Erdogan since he elected so it should be in the introduction.--Abbatai 12:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for them being the biggest challenge? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible violation of NPOV

I can't edit because I don't use an account, but I thought the sentence "During trial, eggs and stones were considered deadly weapons." was a bit non-NPOV because "eggs" and "stones" were italicized. I recognize that this was done to emphasize that these words were quoted, but it can easily be construed as meaning that it's ridiculous to consider them as weapons. Do you agree? Could anyone change this? 83.80.199.59 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense to me to un-italicize the two words. First, the italicization isn't what ridicules anything, the "deadly" in "deadly weapons" does. "Deadly" is not mentioned in any sources, stones can indeed be considered weapons and the eggs weren't considered weapons by the court, the student is facing charges because he embarrassed an government official.
But the whole article is so full of irrelevant bullshit, I don't see the point in changing it now, only to have the change undone again within a couple of hours. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I gave the "Democracy"-paragraph a complete overhaul and am planning to continue improving it in the following days.
In the context of the paragraph it makes no sense to mention the student arrests at all, so I've added them as references to a mention of a more authoritarian trend concerning freedom of speech. Ideally the article should in future deal with government responses to protests and demonstrations, where this student protest, arrests and trials can be listed. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Next to being subjective and biased, this article includes some errors in the references even at a first glance. These errors can be discussed under this subject.

14 June 2013: The references 71,72,73 are marked as being retrieved in 9 July 2013, a date yet to arrive in a month. Moreover these references are personal declarations of Erdogan and are not independent and verified facts. 71- "Başbakan Erdoğan'dan gece yarısı mesajı". Bugun. 7 July 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 72- "Duble yollar uzadı; kaza ve ölümler yüzde 50 azaldı". Zaman. 17 January 2011. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 73- "High-speed train begins its first travel btw Ankara-Eskişehir". Today's Zaman. 13 March 2009. Retrieved 9 July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puskulwiki (talk • contribs) 11:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights

He gave the European Court of Human Rights supremacy over Turkish courts

What exactly was it that happened during Erdogan's terms in office? What I found out so far was that starting in 1987 Turkey accepted the right to apply individually to the European Court of Human Rights and in 1990 they recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Both was well before his time as prime minister. Has anything else happened since? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Jarosch (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I can't find anything that would back up that claim, I removed the part for now and mentioned the Democratic Initiative instead, which seems to be a umbrella project for human rights improvements in Turkey.
There is also nothing that would suggest that the Democratic Initiative on Kurdish rights stalled, also removed. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of criticism section

Personally, I don't like Tayyip and his political connections since his failure during the mayor of Istanbul period (I was 6 during the 28th February issue). Besides of my personal thoughts, this article needs a section (or seperate article), telling about his negative and provocative ways like criticisms of Atatürk and Mohammad. OnurT 23:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate to include criticism, but putting it in a separate section or especially a separate article is not a good style. It is better to cover these things with the allegations and justifications together in one section so that people can evaluate an incident as a whole. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There is not a single living dictator anywhere in the world who would not approve of their Wikipedia article. They are, even the worst of them, if one believed Wikipedia articles, all perfect angels, pure and unblemished in every way, honest and diligent, laden with justifiable honours and awards, and always free of any criticism. Wikipedia BLP rules - a boon and a blessing to monsters worldwide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete his previous claim to be Georgian

Don't delete his previous claim to be Georgian. Wikipedia is not the place for your politics. You, present Turkish people are Indo-European Hattians, Hurrians, other Europeans of old Anatolia, Trojans, later Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Persians, other Europeans slaved by Anatolians and wild Turks, etc, etc. Your claim to be real Turks is minor; real but minor in size. Iranians might be more Turk and Mongol than you, as we were and are more near to Turkish lands of central Asia. Stop this!-Raayen (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

He clarified this issue in a recent interview and said adding that he was a purebred Turk and a Sunni.[1] Your source is outdated and not WP:RS Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources about Georgian Roots

According milliyet (a newspaper) He was say in Batumi, 2004 "I'm a Georgian, my family is a Georgian family which migrated from Batumi to Rize" [[2]]

Turkish journalist Murat Ide (he was also in Batumi with Erdoğan, 2004). He say: "I heard, Erdoğan was say I'm Georgian". [[3]]

According to Mikheil Saakashvili, Erdoğan have Georgian blood. Erdoğan told his Georgian roots to him. [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

According to Mary Robinson who is ex-president of ireland. She was call Erdoğan, who have Georgian roots.. in United Nations General Assembly [[7]] [[8]]

Ethnicity isn't important. Maybe he is not Georgian. But majority of Turkish sources say like this..--Emyr93 (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what his unofficial "dramatized" biography has to say [9] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of antisemitism

I just undid this edit pending a discussion of reliable sources. It seems that the edit was essentially based on opinion pieces in Haaretz. These opinions might or might not be accurate in their assessment of his thinking, but it strikes me that if they are, there ought to be more clearly objective sources available which would be more convincing. Haaretz also has a nasty habit of citing itself rather than independent sources, likely for commercial reasons. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:OR. Nowhere does the sources say that Kısakürek was the source of Erdogan's view of Jews. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, the writer in Haaretz is a known German anti-Semitism researcher. There is no reason to dismiss his article just because it was written in the "opinion" section, as long it is based on research and facts. Plus, the entry is based on a second and more detailed source titled "Erdogan’s Muse: The School of Necip Fazil Kisakurek, with the same opinion. I have now added a third source, in which it says the following: "Kısakürek’s ideas are known to have had a significant impact on the thinking of Erdoğan as well as President Abdullah Gül. Kısakürek was not only a prominent conservative critic of the secularist republic, but equally and perhaps even more importantly in light of current developments, a pioneer of systematic, unabashedly anti-Semitic thinking in Turkey." Again, no reason to dismiss this sources. Regarding the order of this chapter, I have placed the edit in a chronological order as it for more then 2 weeks. The entry has nothing to do on the bottom after "rewards" section. ג'יס (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You can't just readd it because you have responded here. This needs to be discussed more. Again, nowhere does the sources say that Erdogan's views of Jews was based on Kısakürek's views. Secondly, as I have said before, a section with only criticism should be avoided (WP:CRIT), and having it at the top is worse. While you say this is because of chronological order, you know that nearly everything of that was during his time as PM. What could be done is to add the earlier part to the first or two section about his background/career (which then could and should be expanded to cover more about Kısakürek's views and not only focusing on one thing) and the rest under his time as prime minister. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Why single out "AntiSemitism" - especially since this is now a very misused and almost worthless label (it is now becoming an honorable thing to be - given that anyone who is not an AntiSemite is almost, by implication if not definition, a supporter of the indiscriminate mass murder of women and children). Why not just call that section "Accusations of Racism", and add to the section his opinions about everyone who is not his supporters. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
ג'יס, I see that you once again reinserted it in late December and this inaccurate statement has been there until now, in addition to when you again inserted it on 18 August. I explained here above on 11:00, 17 August 2014 why it can't be there. I looked at the sources and they don't report what you are saying and then you are adding WP:SYNTH. If you once again reinsert this, I will report you. Things have to be backed up. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

endnote 25 does not make sense

in the cited article, there is no mentioning of a cousin danny "talat" Torosoglu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papershaffler (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Erdogan is purported to be supporting the lunatic-fringe theory that Muslims discovered the Americas in the 12th century ...

This ... is bizarre. I'd expect this from, say, the former Iranian president and his like, but good grief! Associated Press story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/11/16/turkey-erdogan-muslims-discovered-americas-3-centuries-before-christopher/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd use this source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30067490 as Fox News has a reputation for sensationalism while the BBC is known for impartiality. I've tried to add this to the article on pre-Columbian contact theories, but it was instantly reverted with the reason that Erdogan isn't qualified enough to speak on the matter (that is an absolute fact, but he is also the leader of 80 million people) '''tAD''' (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As an Englishman, I can easily say "what rot." Leave your left-leaning mind at the gate, please. You are speaking about the Fox News station's editorial shows, not the headline news. By the way, do you see the words, "Associated Press" above? HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who knows me would know that I am not in the least "left-leaning", first I've ever heard of that. It's funny how trying to require reliable sources gets you accused of bias by both sides. I would include BBC in a higher bracket of source than Fox or Daily Mail (moreso than Mirror or Socialist Worker before you ask, although alongside the right-wing Telegraph), so what would be the harm in using the more reliable source to explain the same point? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Erdoğan's corrupt mind is filled with filth, thats why he can say reasonable things. He is obsessed with that Turkish-Islam syntesis altough he is a Georgian. kazekagetr 12:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we have a section titled, perhaps, "Personal Views", or "Personal Beliefs" where we can mention these sort of opinions. Here is another source [10]. Pure Erdogan. Other stuff to add could be his "One of them came and said I was a Georgian. Then another came up and, I beg your pardon, called me uglier things, saying I was Armenian", and his "Even Buddhism", and such like. BTW, there is a pre-Erdogan bit of "wisdom" that the Turks discovered the Turks and Caicos Islands (which is why they are called the Turks and Caicos Islands). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And another source: [11]. And here is Erdogan's bizarre belief becoming state policy: [12] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as Wikipedia lists the gaffes of Berlusconi and Prince Philip among others, there is no reason not to include those of Erdogan when we use reliable sources as you have here '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Turkish people of Georgian descent

I do not want to edit-war, but this category was re-added several times by an IP, and, in my opinion, there is no substantial evidence in the article that Erfogan is of Georgian descent.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anybody here object to bot archiving of this talk page?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering how long it is, archiving would be good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Opposed. Tjlynnjr (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC) .
Opposed. Moving from the start to the end of the page is just a key press away. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Insulting" Erdogan

By March 2015 "More than 70 people in Turkey have been prosecuted for “insulting” Erdoğan since he was elected to office in August 2014." [13]. Same here [14]. This seems notable enough to be included, together with examples. But I'm not clear who in Turkish law starts these cases, and if Erdogan has to be personally involved or personally in agreement with them going ahead. Also in March 2015, the same newspaper writes: "Citing Turkey’s defamation laws, Erdoğan has filed criminal complaints citing “insult” against more than 60 people in the country since he was elected to office in August 2014". This suggests that the two figures are related but not exactly connected: that 70 people have been prosecuted, but it is not clear from the source how many are as a result of Erdogan personally filing complaints, and that 60 persons have had criminal complaints filed against them personally by Erdogan, but it is not clear from the source how many were actually prosecuted. Maybe more info can be found in Turkish media to tie down some hard figures before adding things to the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Erdogan changed the government system of Turkey to dictatorship. Therefore critisizing Dictator Erdogan is illegal in Turkey.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2015

doesn't talk about the time he said the n word 74.103.113.143 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Justice and Development Party membership.

President of Turkish Republic can not be a member of any party so that section needs a correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgion (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently the 5th reference, an article titled Erdoğan'a ceza şoku is a broken link. I lack permission to edit this directly. Can someone with access take care of it (I have referenced a working link within this comment)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Robert Smith (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Court case about comparison to Gollum

There has been media coverage of someone being sued for comparing the President to Gollum from The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, though it turns out the images used were actually of Sméagol rather than Gollum. Relevant newspaper articles include http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/dec/03/recep-tayyip-erdogan-compared-to-gollum-insult-praise and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/lord-of-rings-director-insult-to-erdogan-mistaken-as-gollum-as-charcter-is in case someone wants to add something appropriate to the article (in line with WP:UNDUE, obviously. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

clearly a bias and unfair which is against wiki rules and polices, please help!

this article is clearly bias, one-sided, hateful and incomplete, its one sided that paints clear negative picture of a president, I ask that fair information be promote inline with the ethical procedures and policies of Wikipedia, that hate should not be promoted against anyone, and that truth be told at all times... iv tried to implement fair edits yet people are abusing and ignoring Wikipedia's rules and polices of unbiased info, therefore this page should be locked with fair and true unbiased information whatever that may include, that ultimately does justice to readers, wikis rules and polices and every other stakeholder...

cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.108.252 (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your edits were clearly biased, unfair, and against Wikipedia's policies; and others have helped. As I said at Wikipedia:Help desk:
See WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:V, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not a platform for any politician, all new information must be supported by mainstream academic or journalistic sources, we do not create artificial balance when almost all sources agree on a point, and we are not censored to help the feelings of an autocrat.
In short, we are not a propaganda arm for any government. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article seems like a propaganda brochure for Dictator Erdogan. There is no debate on the fact that he is a dictator. Even his supporters see him as a benevolent dictator (although he is not). This fact should be clearly stated on the Dictator's biography page.

completely disagree, I'm from Australia & very far from any bias when it comes to the truth or Turkey, your argument is weak and childish; that the elected president of a country that of 85% of all voters, over 50% voted for Him as the president, yet you still imagine that "there is no debate", your an absolute joke, unworthy of debating with, a perfect analogy to this is that of a person playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good the person is, the pigeon will shit on the board and strut around like it won...

Shame on the Wikipedia community, I truly thought that you would support good faith and unbiased truths promoting peace, instead of supporting negativity, hate and bullying that oppresses world peace...

write as you wish, time will reveal all truths for those who truly seek it...

cheers From Australia... why is my response being deleted?

clearly a bias, libelous material THAT certainly is NOT a NEUTRAL point of view...

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...

why is THIS talk-post being deleted please answer? 114.78.99.134 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your argument goes both ways. We don't allow unsourced propaganda in articles, either. The material that you think is negative is reliably sourced. If you have a problem with it, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not supporting any biases, I am trying to enforce Wikipedia's rules, I don't care where the source come from or how reliable it is, if it goes against Wikipedia rules then it should be delete, I acknowledge that I am not above Wikipedia's rules and so should you and all of Wikipedia community... again I stress that Wikipedia does Not allow any negativity, hate, un-neutral or libelous info, so please be apart and inline with the community rules and standards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs)

You are fighting against WP:NOTCENSORED, you completely failed to follow WP:V with your unsourced additions, and your hero-worshiping tone did go against WP:NOTPROMO.
Per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DUE, Wikipedia does summarize negative coverage by academic or journalistic sources. We don't pretend that Hitler was just some guy who painted, because that's not what historians and journalists know him for. We don't pretend that John Wayne Gacy was just a clown, because that's not what historians and journalists know him for. This whole pretense that we don't allow anything negative is completely wrong.
Now, if you meant that we can only add negative material if it is supported by reliable sources, then yes, that'd be right -- but that's what the article does. In fact, it's fair to say that no material (positive or negative) can be added unless it's supported by reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Again I acknowledge that I am not above Wikipedia's rules and so should you and all of Wikipedia community... this is what Wikipedia has posted and is not my opinion or rules. my questions is why would anyone delete this talk-post/discussion?

This what should be enforced!!! read carefully the following...

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.

and who/why would anyone be against this? again please help, only with the help of the Wikipedia community can we achieve this standard...

yours sincerely... 08:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs)

Please point to any material that is not backed by a professionally published mainstream journalistic or academic source. Bear in mind that the intro summarizes sourced material found later in the article.
You keep saying "neutrality," but you don't seem to realize that we enforce neutrality by sticking to the sources. We don't create artificial balance by pretending that one side has way more support than it really does, nor do we pretend that a rather vocal majority of sources is less than what it is.
You keep saying "libel," but we're just repeating information that's found in the sources all over the world. If there is any libel, Erdoğan will have to address the newspapers we got the info from, not us. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia community that you should be asked to point out and delete any info that go's against Wikipedia rules and (not me personally) or not just ONE individual(again since you have a hard time understanding, it is the Wikipedia community duty as a whole to uphold the rules and delete any libelous material), I'm only here to remind the community to follow Wikipedia's rules, stated above, but you just don't understand, like I said before your an absolute joke, unworthy of debating with, a perfect analogy to this is that of a person playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good the person is, the pigeon will shit on the board and strut around like it won... your the biggest pigeon ever and thus I'm not going to ask you any more why you have deleted this chat-post or my response to a previous chat-response, or any other question, please don't respond your only embarrassing your self, your obvious to what/who you are, no need to explain further... 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs)

No. You claim there is a problem, so it is your responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. The burden of proof rests on whoever makes the claim. Shoving the responsibility onto other people is not only irresponsible and rude, but tendentious.
You say you're here to remind us of our "rules," and yet you repeatedly show that you don't know what they are or how they actually work. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact of your statement "There is no debate on the fact that he is a dictator" clearly shows your bias and any intelligent person can see this, and can tell what your preferred sources and the tone and bias they have. please assess your view with a scientific approach, this will show you exactly where you differ from the truths. it is not me who gives responsibility of correction to the Wikipedia community I'm sure you know that Wikipedia gives this, so please don't start... I'm not asking anything from you so don't ask anything from me, again I'm appealing to the Wikipedia community in general to help up hold the rules set out for all articles especially for living people who are leaders of great countries be it Turkey or Australia or any other... just follow the rule, which are as follows:

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 Libelous.....

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

peace and love to all... 10:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs)

Those words were posted by 85.98.182.96 (who is from Turkey, by the way), not me. You really do not know how this site works if you think I posted that.
Once again: point out any portion of the article that is not backed by a reliable source. If you can't do that, then you have nothing to complain about. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up." You yourself admit that the libelous material has to be identified, and yet you refuse to do that.
Your repeated calls to delete anything that's "un-neutral" are sounding like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
For the last time: either point out specific portions of the article that are not backed by reliable sources, or go away. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to cry about what most of the world (as per the sources in the article) thinks about Erdoğan, and any further posts that do not identify specific problems will be treated as worthless soapboxing instead of legitimate concerns. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

Remove the sentence "and generally considered an autocrat" as it is an opinion. This article should showcase the facts, views of supporters and opposition members but not personal opinions of the writers. Jramsey87 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the introduction summarizes the rest of the article. "Autocrat" is perhaps too short and simple a summary for the material in the Controversies section and much of the rest of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we please have some udated information about the turkish presidents unlawful imprisionment of journalists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.12.216.250 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The word "autocrat" should be replaced with "dictator". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.162.21 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it should not.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016


119.148.13.250 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

Someone needs to take a look at "The Pelican Brief memorandum." The first sentence doesn't make sense. vvvvv

The Pelican Brief memorandum

on May 1, 2016 a controversial anonymous blog post named The Pelican Brief demanding resign of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu.

Dan2923 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Reopen if you have a specific change suggestion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I misinterpreted the request. It's now done. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Admitting Being a Dictator

In May 2015 Erdogan personally admitted being a dictator. This should be mentioned in his biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.154.116 (talk)

He's said something to that effect a couple times, but as far as I'm aware, I'm fairly sure it's always been with a qualifier such as "if I behave as a dictator, it's only because of __insert reason, usually due to security concerns or protecting Turkish culture__, and so I have to." That's not an exact admission, and per WP:NPOV, we wouldn't present it as such. He's also denied being one on many other occasions. We're an encyclopaedia, and not a sensationalist weekly.
We do, however, have a variety of sources who have analysed his admnistration, and said that quite directly. These are already in the article, though.
However, if you can show that a this most recent event is different, and its the subject of extensive or visible media coverage (in reliable sources), then please post it here, and I'll make the change for you since the article is currently semi-protected. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan/Archive_3&oldid=1090576856"