Jump to content

Talk:Gezi Park protests/Archive 4

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

2013 protests continues in 2014 ?

We are not in 2013, we are in 2014 if im not wrong, how can it be still ongoing if it has a specific date ? I think we should create another page for the protests in 2014.

Or we can change the article's name to 'Gezi protests' as we call it in Turkey, and as Turkish media calls these protests. KazekageTR (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Such commentaries have been already realized about the wikipedia name of the protests. Please check those in Archive 1, 2 and 3.
For now "2013" seems appropriate. Perhaps it is considered as a specific date/year in public's mind because this kind of massive turmoil occurred in Turkey almost 30-odd years after the 12 September 1980 coup. Please note that this is just an observation; not a scientific research to decide what to write as a wiki title.
Besides, in Turkish wiki, the name is still "2013 Taksim Gezi Parkı protestoları" because -- again; "perhaps" -- the events commenced in this particular area and snowballed all over Turkey.
It seems, no one can foresee what will happen in the future, even the perspective of a coterie of sociologists may not attempt to change the title.
Lastly, KazekageTR what is your source to put a finish date on the info-box? It seems, there is not clear source to declare the protest's end. In the Turkish one, "the 30 August 2013" date was written as a finish date referenced through a PDF report by the Amnesty International; which also does not prove the real end.
To put a finish date can be perceived as a counter-protest approach by many. Maybe that's why so many registered and non-registered wiki users -- no matter pro-, anti- or neutral -- hesitate to get involved into the issue directly. --Toksoz (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To give more specific reasons, if only "Taksim Gezi Park" is recognized as a start and end place, the finish date must be the 15 June 2013 as police intervened wrathfully and cleaned the park's entirety. But after June the 15, the protests continued. One more example is the 10 September 2013, the day Ahmet Atakan died in Antakya. Forums occasionally continue. The trials of deceased people continue in support of temporary protests around court buildings. Temporary march occur to support, to commemorate or to heal with those in hospitals or in custody.
There are also many occasional counter-protest acts which do not appear in main stream media and also in social media.
So it is not that much easy to agree on a finish date. --Toksoz (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well after all I agree with you. We can't do anything about the finish date and i believe it will go on forever cause as you know Turkey has a very authoritarianistic government which makes people to shout against it. KazekageTR (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear KazekageTR, whatever we [let's say; "the entire humanity!"] think about governments, which political ideologies we support and/or are leaning to; first thing we, at least the registered users/editors of wikipedia without ignoring those who prefer to remain non-registered or anonymous, should pay more attention to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" in today's world.
Trying to be constructive is better than to be destructive.
Thanks indeed for your revert of the finish date. --Toksoz (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the title has to change as long as the protests are continuing. Turkish protests (2013–present) or perhaps Protests in Turkey (2013–present) seem fair enough in my opinion. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Protests in Turkey (2013–present) will be fine. Turkish protests are more racial i think and these protests are not just commenced by Turkish people. Thank you for you reccomandation. KazekageTR (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. No prejudice against a new request with a new target. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 protests in Turkey → Protests in Turkey (2013–present) – The protests are still ongoing and we are now in 2014. Turkish protests seems to be causing trouble and confusion so "in Turkey" looks like the best option right now in my opinion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. To begin with, i don't really find this date first thing necessary because it can sometimes make it harder for readers to search for the article and there are also tonnes of articles that don't use this format. It's also just a practice like you said, not a rule or obligation no matter how "usual" it might be. But that's just my opinion.
  2. 2013–present protests in Turkey sounds a bit hard to summarize to be honest because the date tag is too long to be directly associated with the rest of the title with "present" next to "protests".
  3. I do agree that maybe "protests" in the beginning can be rather confusing but apparently some users believe that "Turkish" is irrelevant because other ethnic groups joined the protests, but i honestly don't have a solid opinion on this.
  • No need to be dramatic. I already said above that i don't have a strong opinion and i didn't answer Yerevantsi's question when he asked whether those new protests are a continuation of last May's protests or not, given that i honestly haven't been following the events closely. I am just proposing a new title since we entered a new year and the article deals with protests all over Turkey not just in Istanbul and the Gezi Park demonstrations are apparently just a symbol even if they were dispersed. It's up to you if you want to start a separate article about the current protests but you will have to specify an end date for this article (if you can) and there's also a discussion in the section right above this one if you want to discuss that, otherwise this argument is simply off-topic. If we're going to stick with the fact that the protests are ongoing then the title's date tag has to definitely change and this has nothing to do with me living in Istanbul or even Ittoqqortoormiit. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And by the way, the demonstrations mentioned in the first source were in Ankara not in Istanbul.
  • User:AjaxSmack - "New" is normal in news articles' titles. For example: "New clashes erupt in [Country]'s capital [City] amid ongoing unrest" or simply "[Country] witnesses fresh new protests" and those can be normal titles when this specific country is going through a period of instability. So perhaps "new" here can come in that meaning? You also might want to read the timeline section in the article itself where the protests are chronologically organized till this day when it says "17 December-ongoing" and that the demonstrations didn't "officially" end in August like Maurice07 suggested because some were also killed in protest-related events later on. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "'New' is normal in news articles' titles." I understand that, but there is also nothing in the article itself to connect them with the earlier 2013 protests; it only mentions the corruption scandal bracketed by the date of 17 December. The reporter interviewed on video in the other source mentions inspiration from the 2013 protests but does not directly connect the two. Even the Wikipedia article timeline doesn't mention any protest-like activity between August and December of last year. I'm inclined to agree with User:Maurice07; keep the current title and split the paragraph on the current protests and merge it into 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey (and rename that one if needed). Anything else to consider? —  AjaxSmack  01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but can you specify an end date for the protests this article deals with? Because if we can't do that it would be useless to split the article and the title would still have to change.
  • I do have a proposal actually, which is to consider the Gezi Park sit-ins a "first phase" of the protests and this recent corruption scandal with its related protests a "second phase" and perhaps create separate articles that deal with them individually while making this article a header that encompasses all protest-related events since the Gezi protests started because it seems like protests against the government won't end soon with this recent judiciary purge. But of course i'm not here to predict anything. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Without sources to support otherwise, the 2013 protests ended, according to those articles cited in the article by around September. That is the last time there was widespread mention of a connexion between sporadic incidents and the original Gezi Park-centred events. To "consider the Gezi Park sit-ins a "first phase" of the protests and this recent corruption scandal with its related protests a "second phase" is original research and should be avoided without citations to back it up. —  AjaxSmack  02:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you're probably right and i don't think there are reliable sources calling the current protests a "second phase" so i guess i'll keep waiting for them to come up. I do have a source however calling them "renewed" protests but that's not enough of course. But again, if you can manage to come up with a specific finish date then i'm fine with your proposal of keeping the article's title and merging the ongoing protests with 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey for now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment :User:Fitzcarmalan, your claims and actions, clearly contradictory with each other. You do not have a strong opinion, but u can move to article without negotiating?? U didn't answer Yerevantsi's question?? "Yes, the protests seem to be still ongoing" above answer, belongs to you. First of all, 2013 Gezi Park protest and protests against the corruption scandal independently of each other! Gezi Park-centred events was attended by a large audience, was a large-scale demonstrations. However, the corruption scandal that followed the protests; with the participation of small groups,limited demonstrations in Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir.. 2013 Corruption Scandal merging with the Gezi-Park protests and being considered "second phase" is unacceptable. 2013 Protest in Turkey as known (Gezi Park protest) officialy ended between 23-30 August : Mayor of Beyoğlu: Gezi Park protests in the past [3] and Report of Amnesty International [4] Maurice07 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: We all can re-check, re-observe similar protests' wiki pages and then come back to this discussion page to share our opinions on what to do with the title.
Always strictly considering wikipedia's conducts as "User:AjaxSmack" has notified; "Category:Political riots", we also should pay attention to "sociocultural backgrounds, political traditions and geographical conditions of protesters, counter-protesters and neutralists" and "how those who are/were 'out of protests' responded". If we take some steps to clarify, particularly "the responds", then we can get closer to decide about the title.
- The May 1968 events in France [May–June 1968]: What was/were the definitive reason(s) to end the events/protests? Do the events still go on?
- The 2008 Greek riots [December 2008]: 5 years and 1 month passed. Why is there no an end date?
a. 2010–12 Greek protests [5 May 2010 - mid-2012]
- The Tunisian Revolution [18 December 2010 – 14 January 2011]: The president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali officially resigned on 14 January 2011. In the page, there are "Post-Ben Ali governments", "Repercussion analysis", "Aftermath" and "Art and politics in post-2011 Tunisia" sections. Do not temporary protests occur there today? If [the events] occur, perhaps some of those are not written in wikipedia because of the conducts of "Wikipedia:Notability" and "Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines".
a. 2013–14 Tunisian protests [6 February 2013 – present]
- The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 [25 January 2011 – 11 February 2011]: Hosni Mobarek resigned from office on 11 February 2011.
a. 2012–13 Egyptian protests [22 November 2012 – 3 July 2013],
b. Egyptian Revolution of 2013 [28 June 2013 – 3 July 2013],
c. 2013 Egyptian coup d'état [3 July 2013],
d. Islamist unrest/protests in Egypt (2013–present) [3 July 2013 – ongoing]
- The 2011–present Spanish protests [15 May 2011 - ongoing]
- The 2011 England riots [6 to 11 August 2011]
- Occupy Wall Street [17 September 2011]: 2 years 4 months passed. Why is there no an end date?
- Occupy London [15 October 2011 - 14 June 2012]
- The 2013 protests in Brazil [Early June 2013 – July 2013]
- The 2013 Italian protests [15 November 2013–present]
- The Euromaidan (in Ukraine) [21 November 2013 - ongoing]
All the questions above are not aiming to insult any issue or any wiki user here. The questions were asked to bring a little sharper lens on our opinions. --Toksoz (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to User:Maurice07: "if yes, then are they a continuation of the protests (usually called "Gezi Park protests) that started in late May?" was the question i referred to and i think i made it clear that i agreed with "second phase" being unacceptable, so please don't turn this discussion into a witch hunt because i would have no intention to take part in this case. I also made my point about having a finish date and you seem to have come up with one (although non-specific) but only one source, which is the Amnesty International one, can be taken into consideration because the other one apparently just cites a person's point of view so i suggest replacing it with an English source. When you find one, replace "present" with your proposed date in the infobox and then we can perhaps consider ourselves done with the discussion so we won't have to change the title. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit tough question: Repeating the sentence written under "2013 protests continues in 2014 ?" title one more time: "Whatever we [let's say; "the entire humanity!"] think about governments, which political ideologies we support and/or are leaning to; first thing we, at least the registered users/editors of wikipedia without ignoring those who prefer to remain non-registered or anonymous, should pay more attention to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" in today's world."
In light of the notion above, are "the Mayor of Beyoğlu", "Amnesty International", "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan", "Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu", "Barack Obama", "David Cameron", "Angela Merkel", "Vladimir Putin", "Xi Jinping", "Raúl Castro" or "Hassan Rouhani" only the authority to declare the end of the protests?
To be more specific, "Taksim Solidarity Platform ~ In Turkish: Taksim Dayanisma Bilesenleri Platformu" is considered a dominant authority by many governmental and non-governmental organizations in Turkey. But please pay attention: Protesters, counter-protesters and neutralists do not take action listening only the announcements of Taksim Solidarity Platform. And until now, the platform never declared that they are the only authority and they are going to decide when the protests will come to an end.
(a) Even if this platform is considered authority by many, it is hard to predict how "protests" & "events" evolve into which directions.
(b) To put a finish date can be perceived as a counter-protest approach by many. Maybe that's why so many registered and non-registered wiki users -- no matter pro-, anti- or neutral -- hesitate to get involved into the issue directly.
In the end, it is not that much easy to agree on a finish date. --Toksoz (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to User:Maurice07: If the protests ended "officially" on August, then why the hell I got a plastic bullet on back on Istiklal Street during September? Who decides "official" ending? You? Mayor of Beyoğlu? That reference you gave means nothing, mayor of Beyoğlu is from ruling AKP. There is no "official" ending date. You say that you live in Istanbul and you don't see any protests in Taksim. Are you sure you live in Istanbul? Cause yesterday there were internet censorship protests at Istiklal and police attacked the crowd. And today there was Hrant Dink commemoration, and while I'm writing this police is attacking the protestors in Istiklal. Every football match sees protests, during most recent matches people were chanting Gezi slogans. Ankara METU protests were part of 2013 protests, so does corruption protests, football protests, and all those other protests. And during all those protests Gezi park was closed by the police, and today it is closed as well. And let's not forget that on May there will be commemoration of the beginning of the protests, so most probably the whole thing will re-ignite again. And many Gezi forums are still active, like Kadikoy forum. This is a continuing process, a spirit. So no, Gezi protests are not over. And you are not the one who will decide this. So quit your annoying "this is nonsense", "this is unacceptable" kind of attitude and listen to other people's thoughts. We'll all decide this, you are not an expert or anything that we all have to obey. And for references, you'll have to do better then citing AKP mayor, cause this is the real "nonsense". Gezginrocker (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Gezginrocker - Do you have sources supporting your claim? Because otherwise this would also be baseless since it is evident that many other users still believe the protests ended a while ago. I already know about yesterday's internet censorship protests, but are they linked to the Gezi Park protests which this article mainly focuses on? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: To Gezgin, Firstly, I live in Istanbul since 1989. Of course, everyday, there is a protest in Taksim Square and Istiklal Avenue, I have already got used to living with it. However, the purpose of this protests different from each other. "Corruption Scandal", "Chicane case", "Internet restriction arrangement", "Hrant Dink", "LGBT", "2013 Egyptian coup d'état protests", protest againts Bashar al-Assad and Syrian Civil War, "Anti-Israel protests" ...etc. list continues.. Her protestoyu Gezi Parkı Protestolarına yamalamak sadece okuyucuyu yanıltmak amacı güder. These protests are not part of Gezi Park Protests!! Besides, this has nothing to do with Beyoğlu Mayor is a member of the AK Party ? If you have a source of objective and accurate you please share with us. Maurice07 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to User:Arved - I'm curious, how can it possibly not matter whether the protests are ongoing or not? I also didn't like having "protests" in the beginning of the title but like i said before, some users don't feel comfortable with "Turkish protests" and i already proposed it in the discussion right above this one. If you have better titles to suggest be my guest.
User:Toksoz - Please stop modifying and distancing our entries. No offense but this is getting rather annoying. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Fitzcarmalan, i am perfectly happy with the status quo, 2013 protests in Turkey, if necessary adding another article 2014 protests in Turkey Arved (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeating: If we take some steps to clarify why there is no an end date in the "Occupy Wall Street" wiki page, then, perhaps, we can progress on the title and the date issue [for the protests in Turkey] in the info-box. The page says: 17 September 2011. 2 years 4 months passed. Why is there no an end date?
Also pay attention to the OWS's info-box that that is simpler than the info-box of "2013 protests in Turkey". --Toksoz (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • One of us, we can try to put a comment/question/"requested move" etc. in the "Occupy Wall Street"s talk page on why they did not put an end date in the info-box. I wrote some more similar wiki pages above [not only the OWS] to get some more light on our ongoing discussion.
And again as I wrote two times [above], it seems, it will not be that easy to agree on a finish date because some participants' personal/political motivations feed their decisions to declare or not to declare about the finish date of the protests.
In my view, the wiki-title "2013 protests in Turkey" is fine at the moment. But about the finish date, my concern is that what kind of authority we expect to declare the end of the protests. And this "concern" is not about being a protester, a counter-protester or likely a neutralist. Please read again what I wrote [above] starting with "A bit tough question:"
a. Date: 27 May 2013
b. Date: 27 May 2013 - ongoing[citation needed] → This is generally perceived as a protest-supporting approach by many.
c. Date: 27 May 2013 - ...2013 / ...2014 / ... → Who is the authority to declare the end? --Toksoz (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. Please check my edits about page and the infobox. I've readed this conversation before doing my edits and hope my edits suits your ideas best.KazekageTR (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not just name it as Gezi Park Protests? It's the most neutral name that came up in my mind if we would avoid to give any temporal and spatial information in the title.
    1. +: Although the protests is occuring/occured mainly in Turkey, it is occuring/occured in many other countries around the world as well..and not just by Turks. It could also be named Gezi Park Protests in Turkey, however I prefer the first one for the above-mentioned reasons.
    2. -: Some people might obviously oppose, as saving Gezi Park is not the main issue of the protests. However...
    3. +: "Gezi Park Protests", "Gezi Park Protesters" have been very often used in the mainstream media both in Turkey and abroad. Here we should remember that, it does not imply that saving Gezi Park is the aim of the protests. Rather, just like Wall Street, Gezi Park has become a symbol of the protests...That's why people are shouting Her yer Taksim, her yer direniş!. Plus, there is no way to fit and create a title, explaining all the main goals of the protesters. Gezi Park is simply where it all started! :)
    4. +: Even though it might not be the most common title used outside of Turkey in the mainstream media (although it's definitely so in Turkey), it is the most common and neutral title that we can use, that is also frequently used in the international media.
    5. +: There is no other Gezi Park as far as I know, anywhere else around the world. So, there is no question of disambiguity.
    About the date in the infobox, I suggest we take the example of Occupy Wall Street article and just give a start date, without an end date (that's neither August, nor ongoing...just the day when it all started)
    These are the ideas that came to my mind after reading all the discussion going on here. I tried to be as neutral as possible. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Supported Universal Life's proposal from the very beginning since the article was created and i also support the Occupy Wall Street-like proposal for the finish date. No source has ever mentioned a proper or specific end date for this but we also can't say for sure the current protests are part of this article. I believe "Gezi Park" is the symbolic name regardless of the protests' location. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Universal Life and talk, please check the 2013 protests continues in 2014 ? section please. We've discussed about it. KazekageTR (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

>> Justice urged for slain journalist in Turkey>> Turkey's negative media image: It is not a conspiracyLihaas (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Those demonstrations happen nearly every year on this particular day and they have nothing to do with this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats right, irrelevant. KazekageTR (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2014

>> Clashes in Istanbul over internet censorship[ >>http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/02/erdogan-turkey-freer-than-some-eu-states-20142971837480535.html >> Erdogan: Turkey freer than some EU states ]>> Turkey tightens control over judiciary >> Turkish police use force to break up protests v >> >> Turkey to shut schools in blow to PM rival >> Clashes in Turkey over death of boy in comaLihaas (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of protests

Enough KazekageTR! What do u think about Turkish Vikipedi? Can you show any news and resources have occurred today these protests related? Please read the article's title once again! "2013 protests"..We are in 2014 and article moving request was not accepted. Also, User yerevantsi have moved the article without any discussion and request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves [5]. Articles of Corruption scandal and internet prohibition, separated from this article. Related protests, should be added to these articles timeline. Next time, I will report to Administrators' noticeboard. Hopefully, you can not start the edit war again! Maurice07 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Maurice07(talk), it seems -- well, I may be wrong -- you are in a little bit rush to change the title and/or the finish date on your own.
If you pay closer attention to what were written above "2013 protests continues in 2014 ?" and "Requested move", you can see that there are not definitive results what to do about the title and the finish date issues.
See 1: The Turkish page of the protests, the Indonesian page of the protests or the French page of the protests, it doesn't matter which language/country is; it is not easy to declare whether the protests are over.
Please read again and again comments above:
- Who is the authority to declare the end?,
- Are "the Mayor of Beyoğlu", "Amnesty International", "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan", "Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu", "Barack Obama", "David Cameron", "Angela Merkel", "Vladimir Putin", "Xi Jinping", "Raúl Castro" or "Hassan Rouhani" only the authority to declare the end of the protests?,
- To be more specific, "Taksim Solidarity Platform ~ In Turkish: Taksim Dayanisma Bilesenleri Platformu" is considered a dominant authority by many governmental and non-governmental organizations in Turkey. But please pay attention: Protesters, counter-protesters and neutralists do not take action listening only the announcements of Taksim Solidarity Platform. And until now, the platform never declared that they are the only authority and they are going to decide when the protests will come to an end.
I am asking you a simple question: Why is there no a finish date in the "Occupy Wall Street" wiki page? [17 September 2011] → 2 years 4 months passed. Why is there no an end date?
There were temporary protests on 3 February 2014 for Ali Ismail Korkmaz's trial in Kayseri, temporary protests on 5 February 2014 for Mehmet Ayvalitas' trial in Istanbul, temporary protests for the trial of those who were in police detention and/or in custody in Antalya on 6/7 February 2014. And all in all, there is an ongoing, quite waiting and quite protests in and around Okmeydani, Istanbul for Berkin Elvan.
So now, you may reasonably ask: "You wrote all these temporary protests above; so what is your source? Is there any web link? Is there any photo or column appeared in one of those mainstream and/or out of mainstream media? Or you mentioned all these protests above; because you attended every each of them, you took the pictures and shared them on twitter, instagram and facebook and will provide those as 'source' in wikipedia; because you are also one of the protesters as usual! It is clear you are one-sided; you are not neutral!"
See 2: The answer to the question above and the point of "talk" pages in wikipedia is to discuss primarily about the article itself. The participants' personal/political motivations, their everyday life, their points of view on the protests or anything else, their educational background, their locations and etc. do not matter, must not matter in "talk" pages and in "main" pages!
a. Date: 27 May 2013
b. Date: 27 May 2013 - ongoing[citation needed] → This is generally perceived as a protest-supporting approach by many.
c. Date: 27 May 2013 - ...2013 / ...2014 / ... → Who is the authority to declare the end?
My own motivation is "(a.)". No matter who I am, no matter I am a protester or not, no matter I live in Neptune or not, no matter what my political tendencies are, no matter what kind of chocolate I like to eat; we should pay strict attention to the article's neutrality and quality itself, nothing else. --Toksoz (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


User:Maurice07 First of all this page is not just about Gezi Park protests for god's sake dont you look at the timeline section or title of this article. Your sources are stating that the GEZİ PARK PROTESTS ARE OVER NOT OTHER ONES like recent protests about corruption operation.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY YOUR SOURCES ARE SAYING THAT THE GEZI PARK PROTESTS ARE OVER BUT THE REGULAR PROTESTS ARE ONGOING MATTER OF FACT THERE WAS A PROTEST YESTERDAY ABOUT THAT NEW INTERNET LAW DONT YOU UNDERSTAND MY FRIEND ?

Edit: To be clear, you're not reading the article at all. In timeline section, there is a sub-section named 'after gezi protests'. And as your sources saying that the 'gezi' protests are over, others are still considered to be ongoing. KazekageTR (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

please read this section before asking your question mate. gezi protests are over but this page is not just about gezi park, article includes all anti government protests and no authority declared the end of those protests. KazekageTR (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent municipal election results

The recent municipal elections, in which 90% of the total electorate was eligible to vote, were widely considered a referendum on Erdogan and a tool to assess the strength of the protest. I think it is extremely relevant to note that the AKP won the election with a greater percentage of votes than it got in the previous municipal election. This page is otherwise very one-sided and makes it appear like the vast majority of the Turkish public opposes Erdogan. The truth is clearly that at least 45% support him. My edits are being unnecessarily reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.66.147 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant at all in this article it belongs to 2014 local elections page. it doesnt proves that public support is limited. For example in Ankara and Antalya AKP won(CHP and MHP says AKP won with fraud and cheat) but in those cities major protests occurred during Gezi-times. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 06:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I think that it is relevant, and that at any case one should write that the Turkish society is fully polarised between pro and against AKP fields, otherwise the full context is missing. Look for example the May 1968 events in France article, and how the events and the actors are described. Alex2006 (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You re missing a point there, no one or no sentence says that all the people in Turkey was participating in those protests or has anti-AKP stand, thats why it is irrelevant. But like i said it can be out in the local elections article refering to those protests... elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. Not telling anything about the context, the unaware reader does not understand what is going on. But, as I wrote, please read the article about the French protests in 1968, and compare it with this one. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a statement on infobox if thats what you're saying like million people in Istanbul, a million in ankara etc. Actually we could re-work on the first paragraph of the article.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not keep removing relevant additions. I have submitted request for NPOV moderation and expert opinion. Also adding a Neutrality disputed tag to the article. Laughingbuddha1 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Are recent election results relevant in an article about allegedly popular protests against allegedly authoritarian Turkish government?

I believe the protests article lede, which paints a picture of a popular revolt against an authoritarian government, should include a byline that notes that the government actually won 2014 municipal elections (held after the major protests, assessed as free and fair by international observers) with an even bigger share of the popular vote than it had achieved 5 years ago. Elmasmelih wants to keep the article's tone very anti-Erdogan, which is not NPOV or even the majority POV in Turkey. Laughingbuddha1 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a relevant to the lede; the 2014 municipal elections were municipal elections, not elections that directly influence the Prime Minister or his power (which are parliamentary elections, held in 2015, and the presidential election yet to come in August of this year). Including that in the lede would POV the article rather than keeping it as an individual article concerning the protests itself. The PM's party didn't receive over 50% of the vote, since the rest of the vote was split among opposition parties; protests aren't split into parties, the article cites that all of the PM's opponents were involved in the protests regardless of political party affiliation. So any vote of less than 50% would in fact be more likely a sign of the political effects of the protests, but either way, is irrelevant to the protests itself. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well i believe you are not daft and you are capable of understanding English. No one says that the full public support is on those protestors, as you know there is a section called Number on the infobox which states that 7,5 million were in Istanbul. Mate that is 1 out of 11 ratio of Turkey's population. So i am telling you, AKP did not won a majority of votes. 53% of voters didin't gave their votes to AKP, and as you know there are lots of fraud things going on even re-elections on some cities on the table. So can you call that a solid thing to represent.

And like i said in the other section, no one says that protesters got full support of the pople, but a limited one. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The popularity of the government (or leader) among the citizens doesn't mean that it can't be authoritarian. Look at the votes that Hitler, Saddam, Asad etc. got from the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.39.147 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I am not sure whether the recent elections deserve a citation in the lead, but I am convinced that we need a sentence that says that the country is - and remains - heavily polarised in two fields of nearly equal numerical strength. This information would give the context in which the protests are taking place, and help to understand why after one year from the protest's outbreak, Erdogan is still there. Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting help with editor who keeps reverting

Hi. I'm having trouble with an editor called User:Elmasmelih, who keeps removing my edit, as can be seen in the recent history of the article. I added Alevis as part of the 'Anti-government protesters' in the info-box. I have added numerous references that clearly state that many thousands (not an insignificant side-show) of Alevis are protesting for their rights within the wider protests in Turkey. I can add many more sources if requested, however, User:Elmasmelih seems unwilling to negotiate. This user simply states as their defense that many other minorities are also protesting - he mentions Circassian, Laz, Albanian, Georgian etc. - and yet they are not mentioned & likewise neither should Alevis. However, i have requested from this user proof that they are protesting for their own minorities rights, but this request is not responded to. I would like this user to cease their deletions and so i am seeking help here first. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No Fotoriety, thats not what i say, clearly you have some issues on your understanding or some part of your brain mate. What I say is, Alevism is a sect and it is irrelevant to say something like 'The Orthodox Christians' in the 'Euromaidan' article's infobox, right? I mean there are lots of people protesting but there is no need to mention those people's background by simply writing Alevi-Sunni-Orthodox-Turk-Ukrainian etc. Please check every other anti-gov't protests' infoboxes and you definetly won't see anything like you do.

If you were to one who is willing to negotiate, you would have just try to understand what my point is. I am not an anti-Alevi, just like said, my papa is an Alevi.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 11:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nice that your 'papa' is an Alevi. And give me one reason why i should believe your claim? Can you give me proof? Anyway, whether or not your 'papa' is an Alevi is irrelevant. What matters are the facts. If tens of thousands of Alevi are protesting for greater rights within the context of the wider protests, then don't you think they are a relevant group within the protest movement? Is it really that hard to comprehend? Can you explain why they wouldn't be a relevant element? Then why are anti-capitalist Muslims included in the list? You use the analogy of Orthodox protesters in Euromaidan; but could you please inform me; are there any Euromaidan protesters calling for greater Orthodox rights? If there are indeed tens of thousands of such people then please let me know.Fotoriety (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He wears a ring with Zülfikar on it and we have a picture of Hz.Ali alongside Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli in our house would that be OK for you to believe? I'm done talking there since you are a stubborn timber-brained person. Anti-capitalist Muslims are an organization not a sect for your consideration. By the way even in The Troubles which placed in Ireland and between two sects, there is no direct mention of Catholics and Anglican but the infobox includes those sect-based factions like Ulsters and IRA. There is no need to turn it to a demographics case, neither this article.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read between the lines. I don't want you giving me more detail of your Alevi 'papa'. That is totally irrelevant to this issue and its rectification. "timber-brained"?! That's not even a word! Please use proper terminology when writing in this more formal setting. So now i ask you: If we have tens of thousands of Alevis prtotesting for Alevi rights, under what already mentioned group would they fit under if Alevi was removed from the info-box? Would they fit under Environmentalists? Anarchists? LGBT? Istanbul Bar Association? Turkish Writers' Union?...You get the idea. Under which group would they fit so we don't need to mention Alevi?Fotoriety (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the unacceptable personal attacks that I see coming from both sides here, I am tending to consider the special case of Alevis in the political conflict.[6] [7] However, I also agree with Elmasmelih's point that unless we have a proper institution, organization or movement with an article on Wikipedia that protests against the government and that can represent Alevis in the infobox, there is no reason to generalize things and add a whole religious group on one side of a civil conflict just like that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a 'creative' person and i like to 'create' words which is none of your business. By the way you said: That's nice that your 'papa' is an Alevi. And give me one reason why i should believe your claim? Can you give me proof? right? You have to read what you write at first. And Fitzcarmalan got my point unlike you. It is not a 'total war' between Alevis and gov't. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And who said the protests in general were total war between anyone?! Please stop veering off course with irrelevant analogies and 'proofs'. No one is saying that every single Alevi is involved in the protest movement. However, a large group are clearly against the government not in a general sense but specifically over what they see as discrimination against their own group. That large group cannot be ignored and simply dissolved into the wider protest movement without acknowledging their unique grievances.Fotoriety (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

*A suggestion: The approach of the protests', occupations', riots', etc wiki pages info-box -- (whether or not) mentions a specific political organization and/or religious sect -- may not be identified for all the protests' pages in the wikipedia community.

A perspective:

- There is not a definitive research declaring what types of political organizations and/or religious sects took part in Euromaidan. Obviously, if we look at the case through "who was the majority; and who was the minority in Euromaidan?" questions; it is very unlikely to reach a pure and solid result.

- Same explanation may be applied to the Occupy Wall Street protests realized (mostly) in New York, 2011. It is very unlikely to count how many Protestants, how many Mormons or how many the ‘Tea Party’ peers there were.

But as I wrote above "...may not be identified for all the protests' pages in the wikipedia community."; I try to clarify these issues:

Another perspective:

- When we focus on the specific parts -- for example; regional, historical or motivational sources -- of the "2013-14 protests in Turkey"; we can say that a huge amount of the minority groups -- say; Alevi, say; Kurd or say; Armenian, etc. -- may define the flow of the protests.

Most citizens living in Turkey -- no matter which ethnicity they were born in, no matter what kinds of political tendencies they have and/or no matter what types of religious sects they participate in -- are aware that through the late-Ottoman Empire to the transitional period of "the Republic of Turkey"; specifically Armenian, Kurd and Alevi minorities had troubles.

I do not try to instigate new topics to discuss in this talk page.

If we pay closer attention to what had happened in the "Maraş Massacre" case; there may not be an issue to mention the sect name "Alevi" in the info-box.

Moreover; this situation can be a coincidence or not, when we look at the background of the people who lost their life during and after the "2013-14 protests", we see that the majority of them are in one of the minority groups in Turkey.

If we try to put those kinds of specifications into the page and/or in the info-box; we should be very careful to follow the WP:NPOV guidance, and it will be better if we provide the solid sources we had. --Toksoz (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

But on closer inspection your arguments are really beside the point. You make an analogy of Occupy Wall Street protesters and how it isn't mentioned that they are Protestants or Mormons. Was there a large faction of these protesters arguing for Protestant or Mormon rights?! No there was not even one as far as i'm aware. The Turkish protests are comprised of a large and diverse array of groups that are seeking redress for different issues. I don't see why mentioning Alevis among that group should be excluded completely.Fotoriety (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Fotoriety (talk),
I think I could not explain my suggestion properly.
Please read again: "If we pay closer attention to what had happened in the ‘Maraş Massacre’ case; there may not be an issue to mention the sect name ‘Alevi’ in the info-box." → It means; we, at least as the registered wikipedia community participants on this ‘talk’ page, can write the sect name "Alevi" in the info-box. But to do that; we should be very careful to follow the WP:NPOV guidance, and it will be better if we provide the solid sources we had.
And why I intentionally gave the examples of the Euromaidan and the OWS movement that the main issue is that there appears -- unfortunately! -- a kind of vicious circle asking over and over again "who was the majority; and who was the minority in Euromaidan, in the OWS and/or in the 2013-14 protests in Turkey?" questions. I need to repeat: "It is very unlikely to reach a pure and solid result!"
For the OWS; there were a very little community of Mormons and the ‘Tea Party’ followers as a counter-protest act; not as a protest act in New York, 2011. But we have not known yet -- and it is unlikely to know soon -- how many people of the aforementioned "political group(s)" and/or "religious sect(s)" there were in New York, 2011.
Why does this case change when we focus on the 2013-14 protests in Turkey?
Because of the regional, historical or motivational sources; most citizens living in Turkey are quite aware that specifically Armenian, Kurd and Alevi minorities had troubles in this country (and unfortunately still have! The last example is the late-May and early-June 2014 of Diyarbakir/Lice protests! You can reach the breaking news covers via all the news-web-sites.)
And I write here one more time: "Moreover; this situation can be a coincidence or not, when we look at the background of the people who lost their life during and after the ‘2013-14 protests’, we see that the majority of them are in one of the minority groups in Turkey." → I do not have a solid information; but as I follow the news, this "one of the minority groups" seems the sect "Alevi" again. One more time, even if this situation seems loosely a coincidence; in a way respecting the guidance of the WP:NPOV, the sect name "Alevi" can be written in the page and/or in the info-box. --Toksoz (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying.Fotoriety (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you too mate. You are a guy with patience i might say. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would still not mind having Alevis mentioned if represented by a proper institution or political party. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course that would be OK. If you guys happen to find news about the protests that include Alevi associations like Şahkulu Derneği, Alevi Bektaşi Federasyonu or Alevi Dernekleri Federasyonu etc. we can put them in infobox.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 11:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Clearly there is a consensus against moving to "2013 Gezi Park protests in Turkey", but Fitzcarmalan (quoting Universal Life) makes a very good case for "Gezi Park protests" as a title. Unfortunately that was about three weeks ago and no one has commented on this RM since then, so I can not say there is a consensus to move to Fitzcarmalan's suggestion. No prejudice against a new RM with "Gezi Park protests" as the proposed title (indeed I would encourage it). Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


2013–14 protests in Turkey → 2013 Gezi Park protests in Turkey – The protests ended in August 2013 and original name Gezi Park protests in Turkey per WP:COMMONNAME. Turkish Wikipedia and other wiki links, confirms this. Furthermore, a request about this title was rejected in January!


We have talked it before. This page is not just about Gezi Park but the all anti-gov't protests in Turkey. And we've put the term 'Gezi Park protests are over' to the results section in infobox. Also we've divided the timeline before and after Gezi protests. You could create a subtitle named Gezi Park protests but this page will CONTAIN these protests not renamed after them. Look at the Euromaidan for example. the main article stands as an umbrella article which contains several sub-articles like 2014 Ukrainian revolution and 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots.

By the way WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to this situation. Because ONLY in Turkish and Hungarian languages the page is called Gezi Park protests. But in those all other languages it is exactly called 2013 protests in Turkey.

There is a solution for your struggle like i said. You/we have to create a page called 2013 Gezi Park protests and we have to clarify the current article with a sentence. Which i will do right now. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • A reminder to those who participate in and/or read comments on this "talk" page, and specifically to the user "Maurice07 (talk)" :
Please read over and over again what were written above; "Status of protests".
There is not, yet, a definitive result to decide what kind of title may be more suitable after all.
There may be dozens of reports, interviews, announcements, declarations, "a thesis of the late-2000s social movements conducted by a think-tank institute", and etc. circulating on the internet, on social media, on main-stream media, on newspapers, in academic departments, and etc. whether a social movement is completely over or not.
- Who is the authority to declare the end?,
- Are "the Mayor of Beyoğlu", "Amnesty International", "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan", "Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu", "Barack Obama", "David Cameron", "Angela Merkel", "Vladimir Putin", "Xi Jinping", "Raúl Castro" or "Hassan Rouhani" only the authority to declare the end of the protests?,
- To be more specific, "Taksim Solidarity Platform ~ In Turkish: Taksim Dayanisma Bilesenleri Platformu" is considered a dominant authority by many governmental and non-governmental organizations in Turkey. But please pay attention: Protesters, counter-protesters and neutralists do not take action listening only the announcements of Taksim Solidarity Platform. And until now, the platform never declared that they are the only authority and they are going to decide when the protests will come to an end.
On 12th May 2014, there were temporary protests for Ali Ismail Korkmaz's trial in Kayseri. And there will be the trial of Mehmet Ayvalitas on 21st May in Istanbul and the trial of Ethem Sarisuluk on 26th May in Ankara.
But no one knows whether protests will occur on those two specific days.
One of the main (and arduous) issues within Wikipedia is that if one says protests are over, it might be perceived as "a counter-protest act"; and if one says protests are not over, it might be perceived as "a protest act" !
Therefore, we may take the "Occupy Wall Street" wiki page's scheme as an example and may write in the infobox only " Date: 27 May 2013 ". --Toksoz (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just name it as Gezi Park Protests? It's the most neutral name that came up in my mind if we would avoid to give any temporal and spatial information in the title.

  1. +: Although the protests is occuring/occured mainly in Turkey, it is occuring/occured in many other countries around the world as well..and not just by Turks. It could also be named Gezi Park Protests in Turkey, however I prefer the first one for the above-mentioned reasons.
  2. -: Some people might obviously oppose, as saving Gezi Park is not the main issue of the protests. However...
  3. +: "Gezi Park Protests", "Gezi Park Protesters" have been very often used in the mainstream media both in Turkey and abroad. Here we should remember that, it does not imply that saving Gezi Park is the aim of the protests. Rather, just like Wall Street, Gezi Park has become a symbol of the protests...That's why people are shouting Her yer Taksim, her yer direniş!. Plus, there is no way to fit and create a title, explaining all the main goals of the protesters. Gezi Park is simply where it all started! :)
  4. +: Even though it might not be the most common title used outside of Turkey in the mainstream media (although it's definitely so in Turkey), it is the most common and neutral title that we can use, that is also frequently used in the international media.
  5. +: There is no other Gezi Park as far as I know, anywhere else around the world. So, there is no question of disambiguity.
About the date in the infobox, I suggest we take the example of Occupy Wall Street article and just give a start date, without an end date (that's neither August, nor ongoing...just the day when it all started)
These are the ideas that came to my mind after reading all the discussion going on here. I tried to be as neutral as possible. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm also not sure, Maurice07, why you insist on having a specified date relying on the same controversial sources you previously used? We already agreed that no date should be mentioned until it is confirmed that the protests ended on a specific day. I have recently come across this source about the Turkish film that won the Palm d'Or: "Tacitly acknowledging the 2013-14 Gezi Park protests that swept across his home country and led to the deaths of 11 people, the director said...". Of course this might not be enough and I haven't checked for more sources, but it certainly suggests how controversial it is to have an end date. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (3rd)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


2013–14 protests in Turkey → Gezi Park protests – Per the above RM. Gezi Park has become a main symbol of the protests and this is an attempt to get over the debate about whether we should have an end date or not. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But it is not called Gezi park protests anymore in anywhere. It is called anti-gov't protests including other protests like Gezi or Metu etc. Like those recent protests in Soma or Lice.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 15:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this argument many times, but please note that 90% of this article's content is exclusively about the Gezi Park protests and even the subarticles deal with these events in particular (Media censorship and disinformation during the 2013 protests in Turkey, List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey, Reactions to the 2013 protests in Turkey..). If you want you can move the "After Gezi Park protests" part (section 2.2) to a new article and maybe call it either '2013–14 protests' or '2013–14 political crisis' where you can discuss the Gezi protests in brief in a small section and where you can also deal with the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey among other things. Going back and forth like this about whether the protests ended in 2013 or not will not solve anything and this will take us back to square one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Partially correct title. But I think we need to specify the date. Ben Melih'e şunu sormak istiyorum. 2015 yılında'da Türkiye'nin herhangi bir şehrindeki her türlü (LGBT, Soma, yolsuzluk, şehit, PKK...vs) protesto olduğu zaman bu maddenin başlığı ne olacak? "2013-14-15 protests in Turkey?" Küçük çaplı protestodan tutunda, Gezi parkı ile alakası olmayan her türlü yürüyüşü, arbedeyi bu maddeye yamamaktan vazgeçin. Gezi Park protests is ended in August 2013 by officialy sources. Point of reference: Turkish Wikipedia[8] – Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally think that the title I proposed is fine the way it is, and even if the protests ended in 2013 I don't think there is a need to add '2013' since it is already precise enough. Feel free to discuss when and how the protests ended after the RM. In my opinion, I think it is best to leave the infobox with a start date only (i.e. no end date or even 'present') but I do somehow agree with you that the main protests which this article specifically discusses ended in 2013. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As you know, there were two other suggestions of re-naming the article all failed with good reasons, I am too slothful to write mines or theirs again so please check above. Maurice struggled for changing the finish-date of the protests and also failed.(check above and history) To Maurice; 2013-15 protests in Turkey will be the name then. Farkettiyseniz madde ismi Türkiye'deki 2013-14 protesto"ları". Eklediğim her yazı bu protesto"lar" içinde. Bu arada bi vandalla uğraşıyorum, ikide-bir POV şeyler yazıp duruyor. Yardımcı olursanız sevinirim.
  • Maurice Flesier and Elmasmelih, I think you both understand that this is not the Turkish Wikipedia, so please write in English even if it's not important because other editors won't bother translating. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ananın amı over orrospu çocuğu

There are no more protests held in Gezi except some minor ones. Information is misleading. I'm not quite sure about when it ended though. Denizyildirim (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

it is the 123456789th section about that issue please do not open up new sections unless you have a reference... elmasmelih 18:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Then we should have protests section for all countries and for all times. This is just silly. No offence, I actually supported and participated in protests myself, but I do think that they are over at the moment. Denizyildirim (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Mate I've participated too and it is good to hear that another fellow Wikipedian did it. But there is no official end date or sth. There are 4+ articles with that situation in Wikipedia too. elmasmelih 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, there is no official end date, but I think it ended with the METU protests. Is it always going to be "27 May 2013 to present"? We definitely should think this through. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You know that is not right.

You're not paying attention to the talk page, yet you're continuing to make changes. My friend, the protests are obviously over. You can't just keep it that way in your own will. This is just silly, when is it going to change from "present", when will it end in your view ? If I knew how to call for an admin, I already would have for you, I agree with your opinions, but this is just wrong. And you are the one edit warring here, not me. Denizyildirim (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the solution is quite easy: the users who think that protests are not over should bring reliable sources showing that protests are going on also in the near past or present. If there is a reasonable gap without news about protests, then they are over. Of course, if they'll start again, one can write it in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is definitely right. But it shouldn't be present right now. If there is a reliable source, then we can change it back. Denizyildirim (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no announcement or news about the end date of protests. There were discussions about it mate like i said you may refer to them and you will see examples other than those protests. elmasmelih 13:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Are we going to wait for an announcement or a news? You know that's impossible. That is not a referenced information you've got there. When do you think it will be over ? When should we change it from "present" ? Well you can't answer that. So please, bring a reliable resource that says the protest are still continuing, then we will talk again. Denizyildirim (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. What we need are news that say that protests are continuing. And if there is enough time without news, well, this means that the protest is (at least for the moment) over. Alex2006 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Since there is no official end date, we can as well only keep the start date. But if I do it, it's going to be my third same edit and it violates some rules. Maybe you could do it ? Denizyildirim (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You should give to Elmasmelih some time to find sources which support his thesis. Alex2006 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep I probably should. If he finds it, then it's all fine. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No the point is that what we need are news that say that protests aren't continuing. But remember that. This topic is not only about Gezi Park protests as discussed before. All the anti gov't protests including Gezi, METU etc etc. elmasmelih 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria for that friend ? Protests always occur everywhere. So it's always continuing. You've told yourself that there is no official end date to this, so you should find if it's going on right now. BTW, Gezi and METU are already over. It definitely should be changed. Denizyildirim (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We can add end dates to results(which i did for Gezi protests) cause as we both say there is no ongiong protests nor an end date declaration. elmasmelih 08:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You've just said it yourself. No ongoing protests. So why keep it "present" ? Denizyildirim (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I said 'there is no ongiong protests nor an end date declaration' read it properly. Which date will you put to end date? elmasmelih 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No date at all. Or a statement like "undefined end". Definitely not "present". So please, find a source if you wish to defend it. You know they are over, at least for now. If protests spark again, then we can change it back to present. Denizyildirim (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'defending' -present, i am cool with that "undefined end" thing. elmasmelih 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Why didn't you say that before? It's set then. Denizyildirim (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a protest today and I've participated too. So it is ongoing.. elmasmelih 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's add every protest here !

Look, a man himself alone is protesting against the government! Let's add it here. Come on are you serious. A group of no more than 1000 people show up, and it's a protest to be included here. I wonder what will you do when it's 2015 ? Look man, Gezi Park protest are over, and this article mostly consists of it. I agree with the principles of Gezi Park, but as a fellow protester, Latter protests do not represent my opinion. So please, just stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizyildirim (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It says 'A wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Turkey began on 28 May 2013,' not Gezi park alone. You daft mate? This article isn about your representation of opinoins. elmasmelih 10:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Call the admin you like. It's over, and this article isn't your playground. If there is a protest in 2015 January, what will you do ? Gezi Park and other protests are not related. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please let this be the end, both of you before it escalates into a sanctionable edit war and affects your editing privileges. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we don't use a crystal ball to predict when and if the protests will end. Leaving things open ended for now is no big deal. Also bear in mind Wikipedia is not a newspaper—we don't need a blow by blow account of every individual protest, just a well-referenced synopsis. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering the open-end discussion going on in this page, through the guidance of the wikipedia user  Philg88 's comment and taking as an example the infobox of "Occupy Wall Street" page; I changed the date section as only the start date.
For the detailed reasons of this particular change, please first read these titles:
(1st Part) "Requested Move" (discussed in January 2014)
(2nd Part) "Status of protests" (discussed in February & March 2014)
(3rd Part) "Requested move 2" (discussed in May 2014)
Regards --Toksoz (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

the beginnings are incomplete

i was there, in the construction of the new taksim tunnel, its connecting paths and renewal of the roads, a pedestrian way was forgotten to be put in the plans,

on the 27th of may: to remedy this mistake the construction company started digging 2 meters into the park at its northern end during the night, to make room for the pedestrian way, this was the night before people started gathering, maybe 10 ppl were there, some people spent the night there and in the morning people had gathered and they prevented the construction company from finishing the unlawful construction of the public property (The park), that day some events took place with police involvement, it got media attention,

in the evening hundreds of people had gathered, the police came in the morning at 4-5 am, without warning they shot teargas canisters inside the park many people were traumatised and from there it spread.

you have not mentioned who and why did the inital digging in the park, before the people gathered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.25.174 (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

if you can prove this things with a reliable source, please improve the article. kazekagetr 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

it was the same construction company that built the tunnels that started digging into the park, 2-3 meters, this caused the riots, i have no other proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.25.174 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


here is a picture of the park, i think the day after the digging, and this day the riots started, because the traffic is still working, no barricades, so perhaps the dates in the article are incorrect, the picture is dated may 30 2013, 17:56

http://imgur.com/myVlb1C

you may use my picture freely in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.25.174 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2013–14 protests in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominator: Elmasmelih (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm taking this. I remember being interested in these protests and following updates about it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Been busy, I'll begin this within a week. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish you both good luck in the GA process, but to make it clear, I strongly oppose passing this article to GA status as long as the title-related issues aren't resolved. So far, the nominator did not provide a single source during the previous move discussions linking the protests in 2014 to the Gezi Park protests. This article specifically deals with the latter, and no offense to Elmasmelih, but he is in no position to decide whether the post-2013 protests are a continuation of the Gezi ones without providing the required sources (see WP:SYNTH). The only thing I came across was this article from Variety (hardly a reliable source in this context) calling the events "2013-14 Gezi Park protests", but that's about it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan Thanks for the heads up fitz, could you help me out wth that, if i remove all the edits that has no direct connection with gezi protests and rename the article to Gezi Park protests,. will i be out of this situation? All done and i have also renamed the article to Gezi Park protests, so could you open up the GA review again. kazekagetr 09:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, extremely sorry for both, waiting for six months and waiting for me. I intended to finish this earlier but the vastness of this topic slowed me down. Though the GA criteria doesn't concern article titles, the changes proposed above seem right and would have been brought up in the review. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Status table

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm afraid I feel this is far from reaching GA status with the main issues being excess focus and sourcing concerns.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    The prose and order of sections needs to be improved.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    There are citation needed tags and unsourced paras.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Too much details in some places, see my comments below
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    There's just too much to do. Closing this, letting you both work together and renominating it seems to be the best solution. -18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Detailed review

I see a lot of content trimming and reorganisation required at various places. One major concern is WP:SUMMARY. Sections summarising parent articles should be of appropriate length, see WP:DETAIL. For example, in this case the Timeline section summarises Timeline of the Gezi Park protests (For reference, see the GA Timeline of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011) while the Background section is independent. Thus the main article links (Environmental issues in Turkey, Human rights in Turkey, Secularism in Turkey and Economy of Turkey) aren't needed. Many instances of single-sentence paras too. Trim what's unnecessary and arrange them into paras. Also, there are unattributed quotations and citation needed tags. Odd that there are so many citations for the death.

Section-by-section explanation:

  • Background
    • The infobox states seven main causes while this section gives describes fewer. This section is too lengthy, consider splitting it into subsections. Maybe into Human rights violations, Islamist/Authoritarian rule, Environmental and Gezi Park.
    • The para "rewrite the military-written constitution" para is unsourced.
    • Does the subsection "Events leading up to the protests" have relevance here? Have sources called each of the mentioned events related to the main 2013 protest?
  • Timeline: This section is a bit confusing. I think if the content were rearranged into paras (even subsections if needed) rather than this list form, it would be great. Nevertheless, you both decide amongst yourselves what would be good.
  • Types of protest: There are a few really short subsections here and their sourcing seems questionable. Provide subsections for only the main types covered by sources. Minor ones can be merged with the rest.
  • Responses:
    • Government: Arrange this into proper paras, rather than the list form. Moreover, I'm wondering whether all those quotations from different sources are relevant. Trim if necessary.
    • Conspiracy claims: I think this needs to be trimmed. Minor ones which are irrelevant can be removed. That Otpor! logo which is non-free cannot be put there per WP:NFC.
  • Casualties/Media censorship and disinformation/International reactions: Too small, these should better summarise their parent articles.
  • Infobox:
    • Don't see why 'causes' and 'goals' should be there, both have similar content.
    • Under 'Parties involved' listing general groups like feminists, environmentalists seems unneeded; just specific named groups should do.
  • One thing I didn't find: the end result was that the park wasn't affected right? why is that not mentioned explicitly or in the infobox?

These are the main issues according to me. Once these are addressed you can renominate the article. Feel free to notify me if you want me to review it again, be happy to. All the best, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Gezi Park protests which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Erdogan_End_the_crackdown_now/?wqqxyeb
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Gezi Park protests which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Erdogan_End_the_crackdown_now/?wqqxyeb
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gezi Park protests. 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 14:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gezi Park protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Gezi Park protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gezi_Park_protests/Archive_4&oldid=1047294130"