Talk:Turkey

Statement that says the Ottoman government commited genocide.

  "During World War I, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek subjects." This statement can be found in Turkey Republic's wikipedia page but can't be found in Türkiye page. Giving the message that ancestors of Turkish folk did commit genocide without doubt even though Armenian genocide case is not accepted by majority of different sources. 
  Stating the Ottomans commited genocide by counting on only one source and protecting that page is just gives the message that Wikipedia presents not reality but politically and emotionaly affected wiews of a subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkem20 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 

Mehmet Akif Ersoy's "İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March"-this is looking not very well.

in turkish page of this article there is no """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """".

Mehmet Akif Ersoy's "İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" its should be this: "The Independence March" "İstiklal Marşı"

if it must be """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """", then turkish page should be """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """" too.

my english is very bad..

the main thing is: we should delete "Mehmet Akif Ersoy's" in english page

hope to understanding... Modern primat (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)modern_primat

Modern primat, thank you, you are right. We do not usually include the composer or writer of an anthem in the infobox and should not do it here either. I have removed it in line with your comment and in line with infobox format. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights section

I noticed that the China, Iran and Russia articles don't have the Human Rights section, while North Korea, Syria and Saudi Arabia have it, but they are much shorter than the section in Turkey, which appears a bit like defamation. Should the information in this section be summarized and the excessive details moved to the main article Human rights in Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No. You removed a huge amount of text. Whole villages have been destroyed, and you removed that. You also removed anything related to the recent war crimes committed in Syria. Your bringing up other countries is a classic case of WP:OTHERCRAP, and your whole reasoning smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Khirurg (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See the article Human rights in Turkey. Nothing disappeared, I moved the text there. Summary edit is a must. Otherwise, the Human Rights section (which doesn't exist in most country articles, including China, Iran and Russia) becomes 3 times longer than the regular sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree, while "summarizing" the part of the article you're talking about, you also removed some relevant informations that might be useful for our readers. Also, your remark about other articles is irrelevant here, see WP:OTHER. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

​ I think the part should be summarized, it should include most of the information but in a broader perspective . The “war crimes” in Syria should be included, but should be summarized as well. The Human Rights section in the Saudi Arabia article has been summarized too. Making the part really long would lead to the impression that Turkey’s human rights is worse than Saudi Arabia’s (which isn’t even close to being true). Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 13:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Summarizing" seems to be a euphemism for "delete it because I don't like it. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, i don't see any legit reason for that, how would "summarizing" improve the article ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

​​I’m not proposing to remove any of the information, I’m saying it should be summarized. The events should be mentioned but it shouldn’t be this detailed. To Wikaviani’s question, other countries with worse human rights have a shorter section, making the section this long would lead to the false impression that Turkey’s human rights are worse than other countries (for example, Saudi Arabia). Some Countries don’t even have a human rights section even though there have been many instances which should be included. People come to Wikipedia to get informed about this country and, as I’ve said before, keeping the section this long would lead the false impressions. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the solution then should be to improve and expand the human rights sections of those other countries' articles. Not to remove or whitewash otherwise unproblematic content from this article, based on the reasoning that the other articles are worse. See WP:OTHERCONTENT for more. Darthkayak (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: The sections are too detailed, way too detailed to qualify as a proper summary. They should be mentioned briefly with a link to the main article, See WP:DETAIL. The reason I’m proposing these changes is to improve the readability of the article, it’s already a long article and it will keep being expanded. Also, trying to expand (and add) the human rights sections to other articles would take a lot of time and a lot of time, and people will continue using Wikipedia to learn about Turkey. A lot of people would get a false impression on Turkey during that time period. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I do not think the section is too long. It's not even 700 words, and largely consists of basic information summarized from statements by various rights organizations - as it is, it is already clearly a summary of the larger Human Rights in Turkey article. I also see no barriers to its readability. Above you state that the length of the section implies Turkey's human rights record to be disproportionately important in comparison to other countries, and cite Saudi Arabia's article as an example. I do not understand what you mean by this, as the Saudi Arabia article's human rights section is a good 150 or so words longer and similar in scope to the section in this article. Of course, there are a number of countries where the sections aren't as thorough, say for example The Gambia, but that does not mean we should abridge this article's human rights section, it means we should work on improving The Gambia article's. True, this takes a lot of time, perhaps years even, but that's a natural part of writing content for Wikipedia - it's an ongoing, cumulative process. It's helpful to remember that there is no deadline. I personally lean towards deletionism myself, and believe that we must be extremely cautious when determining whether something is worthy of inclusion, but the decision to remove content in an article should be judged on it's lack of value to the article (or violations of various policies), not on the state of comparable articles. The argument that other articles are in worse shape, and that this article should be similarly reduced until those articles are improved is at best, misguided. Such a standard could be used to remove any piece of text regardless of its merit, and would preclude the possibility of any article's human rights section being improved, for unless one simultaneously expanded every countries' article, such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content. Darthkayak (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I believe you have never been to Saudi Arabia but a 150 word difference wouldn’t even come close to the actual difference of human rights. What I’m saying is that the section is way too long compared to other articles. I understand that improving (and adding) the human rights section to every single article about a country is the right thing to do but as I’ve said before, it would take way too long to do that. As a reply to this:

“Such a standard could be used to remove any piece of text regardless of its merit, and would preclude the possibility of any article's human rights section being improved, for unless one simultaneously expanded every countries' article, such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content.”

The topic in question is very controversial and keeping the part long, as I’ve said before, would lead to a lot of false impressions. That’s basically the same thing with misinformation, what you’re saying here is that you think the section is of good length and it should be kept that way because changing it based on my comment would mean that “such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content.” Again, the topic in question is very controversial and there wouldn’t be many cases like this. All of my comments are based on the fact that the average “human rights” section on each article is around 300 words at best (I’ve guessed that number, it’s probably less). The probable reason for something like this to happen is that users who probably “don’t like Turkey” constantly come to the article with reliable sources and insert everything they can find which would damage the countries reputation. Almost all of the statistics given in the article are (very) outdated because most users editing the article aren’t trying to improve the article but to add more information which would damage Turkey’s reputation. I’ve been making calculations for about an hour now and see this:

The content which would damage Turkey’s reputation makes about 3.3% of the article (10.000 bytes), content which would damage Greeces reputation makes up less than 1%(1700 bytes) of Greece’s article. And it’s not that content like this doesn’t exist, it’s just that the Greece article doesn’t have a large group of editors who insert this type of material whenever they come across it. (Almost) No one is trying to actually improve the article. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that you don't know me, and whether or not I have been to Saudi Arabia has no bearing on this discussion (as it it so happens I have not, but I do have immediate family who lived there for many years). Going forward, please avoid alluding to my or anyone else's personal lives. Second, I agree that Turkey's article is a special case due to the potential for controversy, although I also think that is true of many countries. That said, it is not our place to try and improve or damage Turkey's reputation, and we should not make decisions based on such criteria. Instead we need to neutrally summarize the views of reliable sources (in this case rights organization), regardless of whether or not it hurts the country's reputation. Lastly, don't allege that a significant number of editors to this page are doing so with ill intent, without at the very least providing some diffs of them doing so. 03:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthkayak (talk • contribs)

@Khirurg: I’ve clearly stated that information shouldn’t be removed but given in less detail, could you please stop with the constant accusations? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change nominal gdp per capita from $9,683 to $8,957. BlueTea97 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@BlueTea97:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Healthcare Title

"In 2012, there were 29,960 medical institutions in Turkey,[452] and on average one doctor per 583 people[453] and 2.65 beds per 1000 people.[452]"

this line can be updated via its source has 2018 values which should be

"In 2018, there were 34,559 medical institutions in Turkey,[452] and on average one doctor per 536 people[453] and 2.83 beds per 1000 people.[452]"

Sources are same and dont need an update. Thanks. Ttkhan (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Nithin — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I just forgot to set it to completed! Sorry Nithin^talk 02:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

"During World War I, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek subjects."

The term "genocide" cannot be used on any issue that has not been accepted, not discussed by the historical commissions of the countries and not examined the evidence, and not discussed by any international court or united nations. It is just the argument of a claiming country. Wikipedia is an environment where no person, institution or country's political agenda is motivated, and it is a motto that it freely shares truthful data sharing. How can an "not confirmed", "not critisized, "judicially undecided" accusation can still be actively shown to the whole world by the hand of Wikipedia and this revision or editing is semi protected? How this type of text, action can be tolerated and accepted? This error needs to be corrected in a short term. Otherwise, it is the debt of the citizens to do what needs to be done in law and social, of that country both in the country and in the international arena due to this accusation of false information that pushes the society to hate and hate speech. Giving a reference doesnt mean it's a true information. Ttkhan (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. Keep in mind, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about a topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Enough with the pictures

• before you dive please refer to 1 and 2. Also for @Khirurg's negative attitute 1 and 2 also that and my talkpage where he accuses me without concrete evidence and full of misunderstandment which resulted in a failure. dudewithafez 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the picture was reached before but the pictures were added again. I don’t see any pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in Germany, then why is this picture being included in the article? I’m going to remove it if no one opposes my opinion. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a translation of your comments and Kazekage's comments on Kazekage's talkpage? They are in Turkish and Google translate is a bit obscure in sections. I see also Kazekage has been canvassing Turkish users on this wiki. This is looking like canvassing disruption so far. So, before you start edit-warring, do tell us what you wrote on KZ's talkpage and what he replied, including the part about a "stable of dingos". Dr. K. 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• To wit:

• Anlıyorum, bence de öyle bir fotoğraf eklemek oldukça gereksiz. “Ermeni Soykırımı” (soykırım olduğuna inanmıyorum) dedikleri şey zaten Osmanlı döneminde gerçekleştiğinden böyle bir fotoğraf eklemek alakasız olur. Kaç kişiye haber verdiğini bilemiyorum ama bizim yapacağımız olan şeylere sorun çıkaracak çok kişi var, haber verdiğin diğer kişiler dönüş yapana kadar daha fazla kişiden yardım talep etmeli miyiz? Ayrıca, planın bu tip şeyleri çıkarıp sayfayı düzeltmek mi yoksa bu fotoğrafları çıkartmak mı. Ben ilk opsiyonu daha makul bulup ve topluca sayfayı geliştirebileceğimizi inansamda senin Vikipedi’yi bırakmadan böyle büyük bir projeye girişeceğinden emin değilim. Önceden dediğim gibi, yardım etmekten zevk duyarım. —-Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Which Google translates as:

• I understand, I think adding a photo like that is pretty unnecessary. Adding such a photo would be irrelevant, because what they call the "Armenian Genocide" (I don't believe it was genocide) happened already during the Ottoman period. I don't know how many people are reporting, but there are a lot of people who are going to have trouble with what we're going to do, should we ask more people for help until the other people you report have returned? Also, is your plan to take this kind of thing out and improve the page or take out these photos? I am not sure that you will embark on such a big project without leaving Wikipedia, even if I believe we can find the first option more reasonable and improve the page collectively. As I said before, I enjoy helping. —- Rodrigo Valequez 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you reported back to the canvassing organiser:

• I’ve proposed the changes on the articles talk page. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Dr. K. 16:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I wasn’t going to start edit-warring, I was merely proposing a change which seemed logical to me. I’ll translate everything I said to English on the canvassing organisers user page. Also, is what he did not allowed? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 17:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC) ​I’ve comepleted my translation. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So first of all, thank you for providing the translations. My reading and writing in Turkish has decayed a lot, so I had quite a bit of difficulty reading it. To answer your question about if what Kazekage did is not allowed, based on my understanding of WP:CANVAS, it is clearly not allowed - to contact 40 or so uninvolved users about a discussion seems to be a pretty unambiguous example of spamming, and requests like this [1], make campaigning and vote-stacking concerns as well. Canvassing is disruptive and harmful to discussion because it makes otherwise genuine attempts at real consensus building suspect. In regards to your statement that "Consensus to remove the picture was reached before," in addition to the fact that consensus can change with time, I see no evidence that consensus was reached from the link you supplied. Rather it seems to consist of two editor's statements on the topic - that is not what consensus is. Consensus requires active discussion, preferably from a wide set of parties; if a talk page discussion doesn't achieve that, there are a number of appropriate methods for building consensus (an RfC perhaps - for more see WP:CONACHIEVE), but contacting people and asking them to support one's position in the talk page discussion is not one of them.

In regards to the point about the Genocide having occurred in Ottoman times, and the photo therefor not being suited for inclusion in this article, I would note that the article is about more than just the modern Turkish state, and includes images from a number historical time periods, going back to Göbekli Tepe. Articles about a modern country are intended to provide a broad historical overview of the region, rather than just its recent history. As for your larger objections to the inclusion of the image based on other countries' articles, I would first question the assertion that the presence of the photo presents a one-sided or disproportionately negative image of Turkey. You and the unsigned commenter below have implied that Turkey is being treated unfairly in this regard, and cite Germany as an example. While the Germany article does not currently host pictures of the Holocaust, it has at various points in the past, and does currently host a photograph of Hitler. I for one would firmly support the inclusion of Holocaust-related images, as well as human rights sections within many more countries' articles than they are currently present in. The bigger point here though is that what we need to decide on should be based on what would make for the best article about Turkey, irrespective of the content or quality of other countries' articles (for more on this idea, I like the essay WP:OTHERCONTENT, as it does a good job at showing why using other articles for comparison is often not very convincing). The question then is whether or not the photo hurts this article, and if so, how? I see no reason to think it does. Darthkayak (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Armenian Genocide is already mentioned in the text, and in the picture about the assassination of Hrant Dink in the "Human Rights" section of the article (which happened during the Turkish Republic era, so it should be preferred). We can't add a picture for every topic that's covered in the text, especially if it's already mentioned in another picture in the article. In general, the Armenian Genocide is a topic that should be covered in the Ottoman Empire article. I'm also against putting the pictures of "dead people" (e.g., the "dead child" in the picture that we are discussing), which is actually against the rules. I haven't seen any pictures about Jewish prisoners or dead Jews in the Germany article, or the picture of the Auschwitz camp in the Poland article. Turks are apparently being more open and honest than others regarding the sad issues of their country's past. To give an example, only a few months ago, many Syrians who tried to leave Turkey and go to Greece were either shot dead (there are numerous videos on YouTube and Twitter, here's one from Sky News and here's one from TRT World) or were stripped from their clothes, beaten, and sent back "naked" to Turkey. Human Rights Watch has condemned Greece for these human rights abuses, yet there is no "Human Rights" section in the Greece article. As I said before: Turks are being more honest and open about their mistakes than most others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, fake news from the Erdogan regimes TRT World and whataboutism as reasons to remove a picture of perhaps the most significant event in Turkish history of the last 150 years. Hmmmm, yeah, that's...convincing. Khirurg (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've discussed most of your points above, but I also feel I should note that putting a contextually-appropriate, historical photograph of a child's corpse is not "actually against the rules," at least as I understand them. Wikipedia is not censored. So long as the photo is not a copyright violation, and increases the reader's understanding of the subject, it is potentially worthy of inclusion. Of course, I may be wrong in this regard, so if I am I would be grateful if you could point to a policy or guideline or something showing me to be incorrect. Darthkayak (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case, it should be added to the Ottoman Empire article. There's already an image in the Turkey article that mentions the Armenian Genocide, at the "Human Rights" section. A second image is not necessary. The Armenian Genocide is mentioned in full detail within the text of the "History" section, in the lede, and in numerous other sections of the Turkey article. But if those are not enough, we can dedicate the entire article to the Armenian Genocide. For example, we can add at least one paragraph and one picture about the Armenian Genocide to each section in the article. That being said, in the Germany article they have a picture of Adolf Hitler and a map showing his "conquests". No pictures of "dead Jews", whatsoever. In the Poland article there are no pictures of "dead Jews" in the Auschwitz concentration camp, Belzec extermination camp, Chełmno extermination camp, Gross-Rosen concentration camp, Majdanek concentration camp, Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp, Sobibor extermination camp, Stutthof concentration camp, Treblinka extermination camp, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going to tell ppl to change that part but i just saw this. I don’t think that a pictur like this is needed. I think it shoud be removed. I hope this is the right way to comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.24.160.16 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s 3 of us wanting the photo removed now. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I addressed some of your arguments above, but in regards to your point about an image in the article already mentioning the Genocide, I don't think that's really relevant. The information conveyed by an image illustrating the brutality of the Assassination Genocide is in no way analogous to the information conveyed by an image of a memorial to Hrant Dink. To that I repeat my earlier question: in what way does the inclusion of this picture harm the article? As for your statement that "if those are not enough, we can dedicate the entire article to the Armenian Genocide," I must admit I am confused as to what you mean. Wikipedia already has an article about the Armenian Genocide. Was that sarcasm which just went over my head, or did I just misunderstand you? Darthkayak (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: That was most probably sarcasm, the article has a medium-sized part related to the Armenian Genocide, that on it’s own is overkill in my opinion. I get that the article also has information about the past but including such a brutal photo of what happened in a different period, and in a different country would not only make an (unnecessary) bad impression of Turkey but it also isn’t relevant. Why do we even need such an image? To make people understand that Turks are “barbarians”? The article is already extremely negative on Turkey and including an image of a crying parent mourning over her killed child wouldn’t help at all. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No one here is trying to portray Turkish people as barbarians. Honestly this might just need to go to an RfC then. We are beginning to go in circles - for one thing I've already made the point that the history sections of these articles aren't solely about the modern period. I think getting more people's opinions would definitely help us to reach some sort of a consensus. I do find it a little odd that despite your statement that "content which would damage Turkey’s reputation makes about 3.3% of the article" (although I'm not really sure how you calculated that, and again, it doesn't matter so long as we're representing the sources), you characterize this article's depiction of Turkey as "extremely negative." Darthkayak (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak:I was being sarcastic whiles saying the comment about users trying to portray Turks as barbarians. It is "extremely negative" compared to other articles. You haven't commented about users constantly coming to the article to add content which would damage Turkey's reputation and no one actually bothering to update the statistics. from now on, I won't be sarcastic so we can keep the discussion WP:CIVIL. If we contact other users, wouldn't it be canvassing? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you mean now about extremely negative, although I still don't necessarily agree. Regarding people not updating stats, there's nothing necessarily malicious in that - it's tedious to update things, and we're all volunteers with other things in our lives, so it's often the case that articles aren't fully up to date. As an example, I just edited the article List of craters on Mercury, because I noticed that since last September it had displayed an out-of date number in the lead - it's entirely reasonable nobody noticed or thought to change it in that time. And my update was small - checking to see that the rest of the article is up to date would be a very time-consuming matter. As for why I haven't commented about editors trying to "damage Turkey's reputation," it's because you haven't provided any diffs which show that that's been happening, and I was unable to find any edits like that myself. I know you joined only a few months ago so I understand why you didn't, but when you make a claim about other users behaving inappropriately it's important that you are able to provide diffs to back it up - otherwise it comes off as baseless accusation, and potentially personal attack. I know that's not what you mean to do, but it's important nonetheless as without it, I and others have no idea what specific incidents you're referring to. Lastly, dispute resolution and things likes RfCs are very different from canvassing. I would explain further, but it's late and I'm falling asleep. Honestly you should probably talk about all these things more with your mentor (though they're likely busy with the RfA right now), as they could definitely do a better job explaining it than me, and this isn't really the place for that sort of discussion. Darthkayak (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I'm not saying that users not updating the statistics is a malicious act, it's just that they're busy edit-warring (most of the "negative" content was added a few years ago and the article has not been edited significantly since, The "negative" parts about Turkey was expanded but other sections of the article weren't.) Here are a few examples. . Also, I've been on Wikipedia since early 2017 but all I have been doing is minor contributions or typo corrections whenever I come across them, so I'm inexperienced when it comes to arguements. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for implying that you are inexperienced. My intention with that statement was to cut you some slack for not seeming to understand terms like Dispute Resolution, Requests for Comment, and Canvassing but I see why it came off that way, so I apologize. Now, my point with the stats being updated is that there is no reason for you to assume that the reason people have not updated the stats is that they are too "busy edit-warring" - there are many simpler explanations. Similarly, your constant assertion that a portion of editors are editing the page with the intent to smear Turkey's reputation is a remarkable assumption of bad faith. Of the two links you provide (which you don't have to format as references, by the way), one is a broken link, and the other links to an edit which, while I may personally disagree with it, is perfectly within the bounds of normal editing behavior, and not sufficient to establish that Khirurg is making some sort of concerted effort at denigrating Turkey. Darthkayak (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And also, the content related to genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman Empire article (814 bytes) is only 34 bytes longer than the same content in the Turkey article. So, genocides committed in the Ottoman Empire are somehow so relevant to modern day Turkey that the sections should be (nearly) the same length? That just doesn’t make much sense to me, does that make any sense to you? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the Armenian Genocide occurred within living memory, so yes, even on an article solely about modern Turkey it would be worth discussing. But this isn't an article that's just about modern Turkey. The history section for example, is a thorough discussion of the region's history going back to the Neolithic period. If you feel that the article on the Ottoman Empire lacks enough discussion of the Genocide, you should of course feel free to expand it, but don't decrease the coverage of something on this page, just because another page is in a less developed state. Darthkayak (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Armenian Genocide is mentioned in the lede, in the "History" section, in the "Religion" section, in the "Human Rights" section and in numerous other sections of the Turkey article, which is about a country that was established in 1923. I think there's enough textual coverage already, plus the caption of the picture about Hrant Dink. If you want to turn the Turkey article into a memorial of the "Genocide", I'm against it. There are many more topics about Turkey to cover. If you want, you can add that photo taken in Aleppo (which is in Syria) to the Ottoman Empire article. The Armenian Genocide has its own article in Wikipedia (the Armenian Genocide article). In principle, I'm also against adding photos with dead people in it, which is a common policy in many internet news websites and forums.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I've said repeatedly, this article is not solely about the the country that started in 1923, nor should we not include things in the history section because they happened before 1923 - I do not know where you got that idea. Similarly it appears you are equating any mere mention of the Armenian Genocide with memorializing. The Hrant Dink photo is included because it illustrates the state of press freedom and modern violence against journalists in Turkey, something very relevant to a discussion of human rights. The mention of the Armenian Genocide in the religion section is because the Genocide significantly shifted the modern religious demographics of the country. Lastly, the point about photos of dead people amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT - Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no policy here against displaying such photos. Displaying a contextually appropriate, historical photograph with a dead body in it is more than acceptable. Darthkayak (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t believe it to be correct. This has nothing to do with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, we don’t think it’s relevant. I would explain why I think the removal of the picture is correct, but I won’t. I wouldn’t be able to convince you, but this is what consensus is. There’ already enough (maybe even too much) textual information on the article, including that photo would be overkill. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So consensus is not a vote or a majority rules sort of thing; it is something that is built up on the basis of arguments and compromise. Your addition of a running count of the people who agree with you suggests you have some misunderstandings about this, so you should check out this page. But I too agree that we're going in circles, and that's why I suggest we move this forward to some other form of dispute resolution. Darthkayak (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

fellas i really don't know what to say, just wanna thank Rodrigo for his/her help since Khirurg accused me totally blindly. I was just notifying some users to join into this discussion since consensuses can be challenged (contrary to Khirurg's statement which he explictly said that this consensus was non-negotiable?). Now for the last time, before i retire (yeah i've graduated and started to work full time, it's not a cover like Khirurg suggests :D) i would like to challenge this so called 'consensus' to remove this image which in my opinion explictly instates a negative perspective on a country with a very deep historical backgorund. We can put tons of other (again imo) 'more important' images which reflects these lands' rich history. I also wanted to acknowledge that i do not deny genocide. I just don't want that image. dudewithafez 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes four of us. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the removal of the Genocide image. The Armenian Genocide is an extremely important event, and relevant to this day, due to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, as witnessed on this very article. There is no event I can think of that is more deserving of being pictured in this article. And sadly, I don't see a compelling argument for removing it, only WP:JDL, whataboutism and canvassing along ethnic lines. Khirurg (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)