Talk:Nutuk

Nutuk was Ataturk's long speech in the celebration of the declaretion republic 10th anniversary, it was printed later. -- aozan

All the links on this page are dead or invalid. The bookshop no longer sells the book on the Nutuk speech. Korporaal1 09:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh ?

I don't agree with the adjective harsh used to describe Atatürk's criticism against certain people (except for a few like Nurettin Pasha, Ethem and brothers etc.) In Turkish WP the same names are listed as the people whose names are mentioned in the Nutuk. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which words do you propose for çok ağır bir dille ?

Mustafa Kemal, TCF'ını ve yöneticilerini çok ağır bir dille eleştirerek... (Merdan Yanardağ, Türk Siyasal Yaşamında Kadro Hareketi, Yalçın Yayınları, 1988, p. 56.) Takabeg (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main source is the Nutuk itself. All others are opnions. Only few of the names are criticized harshly. As a matter of fact, the source you have given doesn't list the names. It only refers to leaders of the party in general. Thus I feel the adjective harsly is irrevelant for most of the names. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your approach is wrong. You'd better read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Cheers. Takabeg (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules. Can you show me a source which clearly says "Mustafa Kemal criticised ... person harshly" for all names in the list ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

There's no justification for removing content just because you don't like it and failing to provide any legitimate reason. If you actually read Ulgen's paper you would find that it covers the speech in great detail. Some people are not able to easily type diacritics on their computer, that is no reason to disregard them or falsely claim that they are unfamiliar with the topic. Furthermore, if the argument is that the speech also covers other topics, it is better to add coverage on the other aspects rather than removing content. (t · c) buidhe 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced content that included a bunch of names and rephrased the page since you violated WP:NOT. ภץאคгöร 20:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation of NOT. You have yet to provide any legitimate reason for removing reliably sourced content. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read WP:NOT again. You were able to type/copy paste "Müge Göçek", so diacritics shouldn't be a problem. The other source you added is removed because it is currently nominated for deletion. Further reading should be accessible, not "I certainly read it and it says ... and that's why it should be ...". It should instead be largely about the topic of the article (which is not) because it is used for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject. This section is also not to be used for pushing a point of view. End of discussion for me. ภץאคгöร 21:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines are not magic words that you can wave around like magic wands without explaining why they are relevant. Further reading should be accessible if by "accessible" you mean free to read online, there's no such requirement, and literally half the paper discusses the speech, making it clearly relevant. Do not accuse other editors of POV pushing without evidence, it is a personal attack. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Violation

Hi, one user added lengthy texts from the book Nutuk. However, since the translation was taken from an article, it may be violating copyright. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]