Template talk:Turkish nationalism

Adana massacres

I'm wondering why the Adana massacres are included in this template when it's clear from the page that they were perpetrated by general Muslim mobs after the Countercoup of 1909. A user has alleged that "regiments that conducted the massacre were the Rumelian regiments established and commanded by the right-wing circles of the Young Turk party. These regiments were never under the command Islamist counter-revolutionaries." I don't see any proof of this anywhere, and no sign of that on the page. The Adana massacres were committed by non-centralized mobs, under the anti-Turkish nationalist Pan-Islamist and monarchist countercoup forces. Neither the Young Turks, nor any significant "regiments" or military, were involved in them. Perhaps the reverting user is confusing the incident with something else. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is some information about the Rumelian contingents:

When the Young Turks returned to power Aptil 24, 1909, they deployed the Rumelian regiments from Damascus and Beirut to Adana to restore public order, which, however, only prolonged the massacre as troops joined the program.

Source:[1]

Local CUP officials were also involved in instigating and ordering massacres

Source:[2]

Ittihadist forces were implicated in the massacre, and some popular participation seems to have been the result of economic-based jealousies.

Source:[3]

In the meantime, new contingents of the Turkish army had arrived ostensibly to restore "peace and order." What followed was a one of the most gruesome and savage bloodbaths ever recorded in human history. Enraged by the magnitude of the losses they sustained during the first round of the conflagration, the Turks, directly supported by the newly arrived army contingents, descended upon the totally disarmed and defenseless Armenians, butchering and burning them alive by the thousands.

Source:[4]

These troops were sent in order to "restore order" but were ultimately given supplemental orders from the local CUP officers in Cilicia to assist with the massacres. These troops, part of the "Action Army," were commanded by the Young Turk officers ([5]). Remember, just because Constantinople was going through civil conflict doesn't mean the entire Empire was as well. Local CUP officials throughout the vilayets including Cilicia still held a firm grip on power.

More importantly, I believe that these massacres, along with the Armenian Genocide, should be placed under a context of a social engineering program launched by the Turkish/Ottoman government that geared towards more nationalist oriented society. Many writers and researchers ([6]), attest to that notion. In fact, many historians see the Adana massacres as a rehearsal for the great genocide that followed. If you think that the article lacks significant information regarding what I have just aforementioned, I agree. We can work together and add it to the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously some joined the massacres, but none of those sources say in any way that Turkish nationalism was a force behind them. The Rumelian regiments and the Action Army were against the Countercoup, not a significant force in the massacres. And I seriously doubt that anyone that's not biased considers these massacres as a "rehearsal for the great genocide that followed." And do you actually think that the quote that says Turks "descended upon the totally disarmed and defenseless Armenians, butchering and burning them alive by the thousands" is a reliable and non-POV source to be included anywhere near a Wikipedia article? While a lot of these sources say that the army was involved in some part, none of them say that it was a main force or a motivating factor behind the massacres. Just because some troops were involved definitely does not mean there was some all-encompassing Turkish nationalist motive behind them, and indeed there wasn't.

The only reliable source I found to support the nationalist inclusion is this, which says that the Young Turks distanced themselves from the massacres, which they had not ordered and which had been started by the "local Muslims" who had "opposed the modernizing mission" of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution. It says that "some sources" say that one single person claimed that the massacres were for the purpose of Turkification, despite the very few number of soldiers that participated in it (and definitely did not start it) and the condemnation of the acts by the actual Turkish nationalist CUP government (as well as the CUP trial of the Muslim offenders afterwards). Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't only about who started it...this is about who finished it off as well. The Adana massacre was carried out in two periods. The first was due to conflagration between local Armenians and Turks or "local Muslims" support by their local CUP government. The second period, after 24 April, was reinforced from the central government under a military regiment that I have already mentioned. It is in this second period of massacre that most Armenians have lost their lives. Therefore, the Rumelia regiment of April 1909 was not just some small group of lawless brigands. It was a regiment directly funded by the central government which conducted and ordered massacres against the Armenians. Orders were given directly from their military commanders to strike at the Armenians.

Like I said, these massacres should also be placed under the context of a nationalist social engineering program sponsored and supported by the Young Turks, whether they be central, local, or both. There were central authorities that distanced themselves from it, but that doesn't mean that the party and its contingent officers or its local branches shouldn't be held responsible for it. I have also suggested that we add more information in this regard in the Adana massacre article. Something that is missing in the article is the economic factor of the massacre. With the massacre of Armenians, local Turks had allocated Armenian business to themselves creating a more Turkified socio-economic society in the region. To reiterate: this is not my opinion, but of the many historians in this field.

I never insinuated that I will use these sources in the article. The language in these sources may appear harsher language than others. But that shouldn't be an excuse to disregard the topic of discussion as to who or what these Rumelian regiments are and what they did in Adana. Besides, the burning of people alive is not unfounded claim. Please see the following peer-reviewed article:

On April 25, 850 soldiers from the second and the third regiments arrived from Dede Agaç. After the regiments set up a camp in Adana, shots were fired at their tents. A rumor immediately spread that the Armenians had opened fire on the troops from a church tower in town. The military commander of Adana, Mustafa Remzi Pasa, made no attempt to validate these rumors, but nevertheless ordered his soldiers to strike back at the Armenians. On Sunday, April 25 at 1:00 p.m. a battalion attacked the Armenian school that housed the injured from the first wave of the massacres. Soldiers poured kerosene on the school and set it on fire with people inside. Regular soldiers, reserve soldiers, and mobs along with the Basibozuks attacked the Armenian Quarter. They burned down churches and schools. The conflagration in the city of Adana continued until Tuesday morning, April 27, and destroyed the entire Armenian residential quarter...

Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's more than obvious that these events were a product of nationalism and especially nationalism by the Young Turk government. So I wonder why this shouldn't be part of the template.Alexikoua (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Soldiers are people too. Not all soldiers align with the state's intentions or desires; they'll join the mob if it happens. This is clearly a case of that happening, not a Turkish nationalism-driven event. You're taking the involvement of some soldiers as a sign that the massacres were driven by Turkish nationalism, and not Islamism? You sound like you're just looking for an excuse to add the maximum amount of genocides and massacres under this template just because it is called "Turkish nationalism". The Adana massacres article and sources add the addition of some soldiers as a sidenote, while you take that as a sign to add an unrelated event to the template. And Alexikoua, you haven't added any substance to the discussion, so I don't know where you're getting "more than obvious" from, other than just intending to "vote" for one side or the other. This discussion is clearly not going to settle things one way if there are editors willing to add a link to a template based on the participation of relatively few unsanctioned, rogue troops in a massacre began and participated in by mobs completely aligned to the opposite of Turkish nationalism.

I don't know where you're getting that this was a "nationalist social engineering program sponsored and supported by the Young Turks" when the Young Turks' government condemned the massacres, tried and executed many of its participants, and denounced them afterwards as well. And you know perfectly well I'm not referring to the burning of people, I'm talking about the language that says "Turks descended upon the totally disarmed and defenseless Armenians", which is clearly nowhere near NPOV language. However, all this is useless, as you seem to be set on accusing the Young Turks of all atrocities that have ever occurred under the Ottoman Empire, even in 1908–1909 when they were aligned right with the Armenians against the Ottoman government (which, by all sources, was the perpetrator of this incident). Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the Young Turks condemned the massacres has nothing to do with this topic of discussion. The Young Turks of 1919 condemned the Young Turks of 1915 for the Armenian Genocide, does that mean they didn't feel morally and politically accountable for the lives that were lost? They did.

In its entirety the Adana massacres had a whole mishmash of elements responsible for massacre: average Turks, politicians, and soldiers; both regular and irregular. It was a coalition of all these forces to get rid of the Armenians in Adana. The very soldiers sent to "restore order" were given orders to strike at the Armenians not because they just wanted to join the mob, but because they were given orders to do so. These elements were guided by nationalist sentiment and it is not uncommon to find sources attesting to this. See Abdalian [7]:

"The intensity of the carnage prompted the government to open an investigation, but the failure to prosecute dashed Armenian expectations of liberal reforms by the new regime. The reactionary elements of the Ottoman Empire were suspected of instigating the massacres to discredit the CUP, but the Young Turks were also implicated. The Adana Massacre exposed the twin composition of the Young Turk Movement, which consisted of both liberal and radical nationalist elements. It also demonstrated the convergent interests of the nationalists with the reactionary and conservative elements of Ottoman state in their policies toward a progressive-minded minority. For the Young Turks, the Adana Massacre proved a rehearsal for gauging the depth of Turkish animosity in the Ottoman Empire toward Christian minorities and for testing their skills in marshaling those forces for political ends. Despite the restoration of a constitutional government, the specter of mass violence was reintroduced as a mechanism of state power."

As for nationalist social-engineering, it is not a term that I just made up. It is used by various historians and scholars to best describe what the Young Turks had in mind from 1908 and onwards. The young Turkish historian Umit Umit Ungor seems to sum it up best [8]:

"Apart from the many wars, an incomplete list of mass violence in the Ottoman Empire would include: the 1909 Adana massacre, the violent expulsion of European Muslims especially after 1912, the 1915 deportation and genocide of Armenians and Syriacs, the 1921 Kocgiri and Pontus massacres, the mass violence against Kurds from the 1925 Sheikh Said conflict to the 1938 Dersim massacre, the 1934 anti-Jewish pogrom in Thrace, all the way up to and including the 1966 pogrom against Greeks and Armenians in Istanbul. Sociologically speaking, one could interpret these events as constituents of the "dark side" of the Turkish process of nation-building, of which violence was a defining feature. Unlike violence in modern German history, Young Turk violence and social engineering remains remarkably underresearched, both in Ottoman-Turkish studies and in genocide studies in general."

By the way, I don't suggest nationalist social-engineering to be a term the article should adopt. It was just helpful terminology to best describe the context the Adana massacre should be placed within the analyses of Turkish nationalist history.

I have already allowed you to remove Hamidian massacres because I more or less agree that those massacres were religiously oriented. But the Adana massacres is a different story. As for the article, I agree it needs to be worked on. I am hoping you can help me.

So it all broils down to these questions:

Were a major part of the massacres systematic in nature? Yes.

Was there a motivational factor gearing towards a nationalist oriented socio-economic structure in and around Adana? Yes.

Were the CUP governors in charge do anything to stop the massacre? No.

Do contemporary researchers and scholars place the massacre as a component of Turkish nationalist history? Yes.

Do we have sources to attest to all these answers? Yes.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sivas massacre

Sivas massacre doesn't belong in here, because this was an Islamist-led attack ("Allahu ekber") against Alevi people and the Atheist Aziz Nesin. Had nothing to do with nationalism. -- 194.166.198.168 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tidbits from these articles...

Despite the fact that you've never edited this article and just came out of nowhere to revert me, are you even reading the articles that you're removing?

Çorum massacre:

Islamist millitants of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) attacked a district where predominantly Alevi Turkish citizens live as a minority, causing the death of (according to an official source) 57 leftists and wounding hundreds of people, predominantly Alevi Turkish citizens. The Grey Wolves claimed responsibility for the pogrom.

You read that right, the MHP.

Murder of Sevag Balıkçı:

According to Balıkçı's lawyer Cem Halavurt, an investigation conducted on May 1, 2011 into the background (including his internet social networks, which were shut down after the incident) of the suspect, Kıvanç Ağaoglu, revealed that he was a Turkish ultra-nationalist. Through his Facebook profile, it was discovered that he was a sympathizer of nationalist politician Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu and Turkish agent / contract killer Abdullah Çatlı, who himself had a history of Anti-Armenian activity such as the Armenian Genocide Memorial bombing in a Paris suburb in 1984.[10][13][14] His Facebook profile also showed that he was a sympathizerof the Great Union Party (BBP), a far-right nationalist party in Turkey.

Elza Niego affair:

Nine protestors were immediately arrested under the charge of offending "Turkishness". Nine Jews and also a Russian individual witness to murder were arrested. Four of them were sentenced for the specific offense of "insulting Turkishness".

All these articles have to do with nationalism in one way shape or form, to say the least. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course I have, that's why I fixed it accordingly. Your own quote shows why: the Corum massacre was perpetrated out of Islamist sentiment. Islamist militants have carried it out, which is also mentioned in the source. Islamism is not Turkish nationalism.

The third one is also unrelated. An individual murder, which was not motivated by Turkish nationalism at all. The case of Sevag Balikci, as also pointed out in the article, was culminated with the perpetrator being jailed due to involuntary manslaughter. If you think that it was murder motivated by Turkish nationalism, you have to proof that. Akocsg (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Islamist militants of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). And you also skipped: The Grey Wolves claimed responsibility for the pogrom. part too. So there's really no debate here. The case of Sevag Balikci, as also pointed out in the article, was culminated with the perpetrator being jailed due to involuntary manslaughter. Okay, so what? Is the Turkish justice system the truth of all things? If that were the case, we'd have to say on Wikipedia that the Armenian Genocide is a lie because hey, the Turkish government and its agencies think that way so it must be a lie, right? Besides, regardless of whether you personally think this was voluntary or involuntary shouldn't matter much. The fact of the matter is there are sources that point out that indeed the killing was done by a nationalist. And whether it was an individual or a group shouldn't matter either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The membership or association with a certain party/group doesn't change the fact of the motivation and situation. So there's no point in pushing your POV any further. It's not my personal thought, it's a fact that there's no proof or actual confirmation about the nature of the murder. Hence any assumptions and indications from your part are baseless and don't belong here and into the template. The only fact here is that you can't support your view with according reliable sources. The Corum massacre article belongs into a template about militant Islamism, if there is one. Akocsg (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the Grey Wolves claimed responsibility. I don't get why you keep missing that point. If the Grey Wolves claim responsibility for an attack, then it has to do with nationalism. That's fact. And again, your assumption that we must abide by everything the Turkish justice system is quite amusing. If that were the case, then we'd have to say that the Armenian Genocide was also a lie because that's what the current justice system within Turkey says, right? But no, we go by what RSs say and it is unanimously accepted that Balikci was killed due to a fanatical ultra-nationalist. Whether you want to tow the AKP justice system's line is your prerogative. But in Wikipedia, if you are to edit in that way, it is considered WP:POVPUSHING. Nothing more. Nothing less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Again you are putting things in my mouth. So what if they claim it? First of all, the Grey Wolves are not only far-right, but they also include islamist subjects. It is part of their obscure ideology. Thus it isn't surpising that they claim it. Them claiming to have done the attack doesn't change the fact that it was an attack of islamist nature.

Those sources (most of them based on Zaman, citing the accusation of one person) are based on assumptions, just like you are doing. And the "AKP justice system's" line is the Turkish justice system. I don't see anything wrong with it. Keep your personal judgement and POV out of here, it doesn't belong here.

To the Balikci case, provide sources that unanimously prove that it was a murder with nationalist motivation. Anything else is jsut POV-pushing. Akocsg (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"I don't see anything wrong with it" is your personal opinion. Read the article. It clearly states that Agaoglu was a Turkish nationalist. So yes, his murder deals with Turkish nationalism. Whether the Turkish justice system wants to conceal that fact shouldn't make us have to conceal it here either. And there you go, you said that the Grey Wolves are far-right. Every source in the world refers to them as far-right. Our very own Wikipedia article calls them an ultranationalist organization. To think that they're anything but is being totally misguided. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

To claim a justice system of a country to conceal something and declare it void is also your personal opinion. Even if he was a nationalist, that doesn't mean that every action is based on his personal ideology. Causality and correlation. You keep pushing your POV but don't present any source which proves your claim.

Concerning the Grey Wolves: again, they are a group which includes rightist (far-right as you say) elements as well as islamistic ones. Nowhere did I say that they aren't nationalistic. You put things in my mouth again.

Alevis, the targets of the attack, are predominantly ethnic Turks. Alevism is a Turkish form of Islam which only exists in Turkey. The Corum massacre is clearly an islamistic assault. What about that don't you get? Akocsg (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't use the Turkish justice system's statements as a matter of fact, especially when there's a plethora of reliable sources that show the contrary. Read the article and see how many sources there are, because that's how Wikipedia works. We are not a mouthpiece for the Turkish justice system's positions. We are to reflect what reliable sources say. And what they say is simple: Balikci was killed by an ultranationalist. Period. Whether you want to believe that or not is your own personal observation but that should never reflect your editing pattern.

And about Corum, that's again your personal observations. You're applying WP:SYNTH and making up your own excuses and definitions as to what the Grey Wolves are and who and what was the motivation to the attack. We are here to report what sources say and we will use our own definitions as to who or what the Grey Wolves are and what they stand for. It is clear that they are an ultranationalist organization and regardless of who their members are, we know what the platform of that organization consists of.

With all that said, you appear to be pushing a strong nationalist POV yourself to a point in which you are siding with the Turkish government's position over that of reliable sources. This is not a path I suggest you go down. Otherwise, we'd have to carry this discussion in a different forum. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will say this, please actually check the articles and the references before adding them to a high-visibility template. Especially if it is disputed, please don't rush to guess at the motivations of other editors. I saw that Corum says it massacre was committed by extremist Islamists and that the nationalist Gray Wolves took credit - and there is some discussion about it here with another editor. Unfortunately, the reliable source cited in the article is an article about soccer. I think the claim that they are extremist Islamists of the MHP (a rabidly secular political party) is dubious - I see a lot of back and forth here, but I think the issue with the Corum article being cited to an article about soccer is a clear indication that the quality of all the articles should have been reviewed before being added to a high visibility template, that already has a lot of content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We can fix the sources for the Corum massacre in a constructive matter. I'm all for it. But you would agree that Balikci's and Niego's murder has to do with nationalism, correct? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Of the three, the Balikci article seems to be the best quality, but it should still be checked for dead links, etc. Regarding the Niego article - based on the article, Niego's murder was a murder of a woman after she rejected a man. Nationalism is only peripherally related to article topic, regarding the government's response to the protests that took place after the murder - this would be better for a template about violence against women in Turkey. (I can create one at some point if we don't already have it.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) And about Corum, the sources are pretty clear. From Cumhurriyet:

28 Mayıs 1980 günü 'milliyetçi gençlerin' faşist saldırılarda "Kana Kan İntikam- Kanımız aksa da zafer İslamın" haykırışlarıyla başlayan Çorum Katliamı 10 Temmuz 1980'e (yaklaşık 1,5 ay) kadar devam etti. Saldırılarda 57 Alevi yurttaş öldürülürken; 300'e yakın yurttaş yaralandı. 300'e yakın ev ve işyeri ise tahrip edilerek yıkıldı.

How much more obvious does this get? The fact that ultranationalist Turks don't view Alevis as neither Turk nor Muslim is essentially what's at play here. You've also argued several times that Cumhurriyet is a reliable source ([9][10]). So there really should be nothing to debate here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is reliable for something like "a bomb expolded in Kilis on Saturday", but there are academic sources for this article, and those should be preferred. There are academic sources that say MIT and the CIA were involved with the ultranationalist juntas and say that religion was the pretext for the attack. So, I don't entirely agree with Akocsg's argument. But I do think the article should be improved based on the academic sources (Routledge, Cambridge, etc.) before it is added to the template. The article currently says "Extremist Sunni Muslims, who were part of a "nationalist youth" campaign" - this is an inaccurate oversimplication that leaves out critical information (basically anything that doesn't advance the obvious POV of the article) and is more suited to the tabloid pages than an encyclopedia.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so are you now arguing that Cumhurriyet is not a reliable source now? I don't understand. It's either reliable or it's not. You seem to be a big fan of it when it reports on Kurds killing innocent people but when Turks are doing the very same thing, you suddenly begin insisting more "academic sources" while failing to recognize Cumhurriyet's reliability, as if the existence of such sources would magically negate Cumhurriyet's reliability in regards to this subject. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to not understand, You seem to be a big fan of it when it reports on Kurds killing innocent people but when Turks are doing the very same thing, you suddenly begin insisting more "academic sources" is a personal attack. It is directly refuted by the evidence you cited [11]. It does not seem like you are interested in improving the article, only personal attacks, so I am going to work on something else.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• @EtienneDolet: you do realise that the Cumhuriyet article you cite is literally lifted off the Turkish Wikipedia article, right? It even has an erroneous ref sign in it (see section "Gün Sazak'ın öldürülmesi ve protestolar"), which clearly gives it away even if one does not suspect from simply the style of the article. Cumhuriyet (not Cumhurriyet) is generally a reliable source and I am pleasantly surprised to see you agree on this and I hope that our agreement on this persists. It is not the Bible though and this is definitely not the best example of their journalism. And coupling this with a personal attack just because an editor reasonably requested to examine some of the ample scholarship on this topic really sounds alarm bells.
• Moving on from that: I must firstly clarify that this is not an event on which I previously had much knowledge on, and I had a brief look over the literature available.[12] This source clearly indicates that the underlying ideological motive for the massacre had Islamist overtones. And this clearly indicates that the Grey Wolves were involved in the massacre. This is about the sectarian dimension in the Turkish-Islamic synthesis rhetoric that characterises the MHP and Grey Wolves, of course, and whilst this is in a sense an offshoot of Turkish nationalism, it is clearly an oversimplification to call this massacre a manifestation of Turkish nationalism. Unfortunately, the "ideology" section of the article on the Grey Wolves is hopeless. For an in-depth understanding, I would recommend Tanıl Bora's excellent seminal work, Cereyanlar (İletişim Yayınları, 2017, İstanbul), especially pp. 313-316 on the anti-Alevi aspects of MHP ideology (there might as well be good English-language sources but I haven't looked). We certainly do need to work on the articles and given your positive spirit of contribution, I hope you will be interested in using literature to do so. Same goes for Seraphim System. For the time being, I think Çorum massacre should be removed from the template. As for the other two, I will not be evaluating them now. --GGT (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no "personal attacks" here. I just noticed how some users argued for the use of Cumhuriyet in one article, while refraining from its inclusion in another, which would be commenting on a user's editing pattern and not towards the user directly. And please, I don't need a lecture on why it's preferable to have academic sources. EVERY article should have academic sources if available. Why's that some sort of revelation? I've edited in the project long enough to know that already. But I chose Cumhuriyet because SS already thought it to be reliable enough to be included in Wikipedia (as did you) so as to end this discussion on the spot. But I guess that didn't turn out so well. As for the source itself, if it's copied from Wikipedia, then it should be removed at once (Boy, I thought Turkish journalism was bad, but never knew it was that bad!). As for the use of Cumhuriyet in the future, that's a maybe. But it should never be used pertaining to the Afrin conflict since, as me and others repeatedly said, there are strict regulations on how Afrin should be reported in Erdogan's Turkey. But I wouldn't want to digress too much here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

GGT and Seraphim System have pointed out that the Corum massacre and the Elza Niego case don't really fit into this template. So it is three users against you at the moment. The sources provided here further evidence this. Especially the Islamist nature of the Corum massacre has been underlined. The Balikci case is different, it could be included, though more evidence should be provided here. I can agree about including that one, though the other two articles definitely don't belong here, but into more fitting templates. Akocsg (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I've pointed counter-arguments which means there's no consensus to have those articles removed. And if you think Balikci should remain, why are you removing it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Concerning the Corum massacre, you only provided a source which shows them as possible members of the Grey Wolves, which doesn't change anything concerning the attack and its motivations etc in any way. GGT also agreed and pointed out the Islamist nature of the assault. The Elza Niego affair is a personal murder case which has nothing to do with Turkish nationalism.

You can add the Balikci case, but as I said above imo more supporting evidence should be added there. At the moment most of the article is backed up by Zaman (being a problematic source in itself), which in turn relies much on the claims of the people involved. Akocsg (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

From the Elza Niego article: "Nine protestors were immediately arrested under the charge of offending "Turkishness".[4] Nine Jews and also a Russian individual witness to murder were arrested. Four of them were sentenced for the specific offense of "insulting Turkishness".[6]" The crime itself is not why it's nationalist, it's the response by the Turkish government that is. So how about we meet half way, remove Corum for now, but keep Elza and Balikci. Because there's really not buts to those events while Corum can be considered grey area (but still, not in my book). Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read that already. What does it change about the murder case? The article itself is clearly about Elza Niego and her death, the events after that involving the government are peripheral and don't concern the topic of the article itself, as also underlined by Seraphim System. I have reinstated the article about Balikci btw. Akocsg (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is about an affair, not only a murder. I'm sure you'd agree that murders happen all the time in Turkey. It's the fact that the government reacted in that way which makes this article notable under the context of Turkish nationalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not really. The affair is about Elza Niego and the official who murdered her. The notability is about the protests and the resulting anti-Semitic responses in the press. The action of the government is also part of this, but as said above it's peripheral. And to declare it Turkish nationalism is also farfetched as it seems, since this has more to do with an official being involved in this case, hence the actions of the government. Though I personally would like to see the opinion of neutral users with more knowledge about this case. Akocsg (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The murder is part of the story, as is the government's response. If the article deals with nationalism, in the form of mass arrests of individuals convicted for "insulting Turkishness", then it relates to Turkish nationalism. It's really not that hard to misinterpret this. You don't get to decide through your own personal interpretation of the events whether or not this is simply some murder whose consequences are not to be taken seriously. We report what reliable sources say and what the sources say is quite clear: mass arrests for insulting Turkishness, a covenant for Turkish nationalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. And the only one deciding matters here and pushing POV so far is you, since another user above also seconded my stance. 9 people are not a mass. There are no "mass arrests" reported in the sources. I will leave this for now, but as I said above more opinions by better informed users should be gathered concerning this article. Akocsg (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)