Talk:Republic Protests

Archives: 1

Article questioned

This article summarizes the events in the elections Aftermath of the rally sections. I think that sections should be moved to Turkish presidential election, 2007 article. This article should be limited to 14 and 29 April events only. It is more convenient.Ayasi 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the reasons for the rally there is no point in having an article. This article focuses on the rally, their rationale and what the results were in the aftermath. I disagree with the move suggestion but I would agree that Turkish presidential election, 2007 should cover the political issues mentioned here in greater detail. -- Cat ^chi? 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflated Attendance Numbers

There’s a big dispute over the number of protesters in attendance in all of the protests. All of the news sources with highly inflated numbers references Atatürkist Thought Association’s (ADD) estimate attendance numbers. They first estimate the area in terms of m² and then multiply it by 3 (assuming 3 people per 1 m²). While everyone agrees the exact area the protests covered, Association makes an incorrect argument stating that you can take an area (which looks nothing like a square) and assume that area is a square. After calculating the correct perimeter, they incorrectly make the “square” assumption and divide perimeter by four to get the side and multiply the side by itself to get an area.

Example: Consider a Rectangle, with a perimeter of 100, length of 45 and a width of 5.

The actual Area is (length) X (width) = (45) X (5) = 225

Using the incorrect “square” assumption:

Side = 100 / 4 = 25

Area = (25) X (25) = 625 (incorrect area)

Using the incorrect "square" assumption would've given an inflated area value.

This is ADD's calculation method. Their calculation method defies the laws of mathematics. This is how they're coming up 7 digit attendance numbers. I keep posting this on the page but it keeps getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.111.130 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your analysis, Wikipedia can only report this if it is published somewhere, maybe in a book, journal, newspaper. Kavas (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Turkish flag cannnot hide the fact

The article must state who is protesting and why. It is not enough to say that so many people protested on this date at this location etc.

It is very important to make it clear in the article that these protests are mainly organized by some (not all) leftist groups. The Turkish flag cannot hide the fact that these concerns are not shared by all the other segments of the society. The support for these rallies will be clear in the popular elections on July 22, 2007.

If the article omits this fact then the article will wrongly portray as if these protest have a wide grass roots backing which is incorrect. Nuri Delen

Hey Nuri Delen, You believe AKP and dont make a propaganda here! I am not supporting Left group and I joined the miting and my father also my friend also.. Dont you ever shame!. The thing is we know what you are and we will not give you any shit.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.243.145 (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil and avoid personal remarks, thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if that statement can come with a verifiable source it can be added to the article. -- Cat ^chi? 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To prove that these protests are mainly organized by some leftist groups, it is enough to look at who is talking on the platforms? Who is singing to the people gathered in front of the platform (Who is Edip Akbayram, for example)? Whose men are controlling the access to the platforms? Nuri Delen

That would be original research. -- Cat ^chi? 11:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how original it is but I added the ref article for the left politics behind the rallies addition. Nuri Delen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuriDelen (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I see no source establishing that this was organized by "leftists" -- Cat ^chi? 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that claiming that these meetings were organized by leftist groups is neither correct nor just. I observed that especially women profile in the meeting included also the women profile of center right parties like Motherland or True Path. I guess that right nationalist groups also may have supported the meetings. Besides, the most well-organized leftist organizations were cold at first to the meetings. Ofcourse, there was a huge leftist support, but the enormous numbers exceeded the narrow political paths and showed a greater consensus. --Firez2006 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of context

We want no ABD-ullah as president! (Turkish: ABD-ullah Gül'ü cumhurbaşkanı istemiyoruz!)[80]

ABD (Turkish: Amerika Birleşık Devletleri) is Turkish abbreviation of United States and hence a pun; USA-ullah

What does the USA have to do with this? It's not mentioned anyway else in the article. What are they trying to say?71.225.102.120 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are accusing AKP/Gul/Erdogan of being a US puppet tho I do not have a reliable source for this. -- Cat ^chi? 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot point to a source where it says "we are puppets" but people who believe this stuff usually base it on Gul's pronouncements of being a "strategic partner" with the US on the "Great Middle East Project" around 2003 and tidbits like Erdogan's advisor begging the US to "use this man (Erdogan)" in a speech at AEI. I have found a source for the latter (about mid-article in section titled "use this man"): http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=50092 85.102.155.228

If you cant find a source for "we are puppets", you cant add it to the article.I am not certain what this source above meant to be a source of. It is from "July 30, 2006", first republic protest happened in 2007. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda in the first few paragraphs

Both the 'leftist' characterization, and citing CHP as the organizer is right out of local (Turkish) Islamist propaganda (first is unkown, second is -- almost -- materially false as about 100-300 NGOs have been involed). Also, the language about the reasons is childish. I have no time to fix, but I put in a POV tag. 85.102.155.228 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

reverted Nuri Delen's edit. leftist characterization might be somewhat true, a better characterization would be anti-AKP. Certainly CHP did not organize it, many NGO's did. Deniz Baykal, Zeki Sezer, Murat Karayalcin tried to use the last one for their own political purposes but I don't think their attendance there helped them at all. Deniz^T_C 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think by looking at who has access to the microphone and who controls the access will give good indication who is behind the whole operation. The first patagraph with

"They were mainly organized by some leftist groups under the leadership of CHP, to prevent the election of a President whose wife is observant of Islamic traditions such as head scarves for women. Organizers were afraid that observance of Islamic traditions by the head of the state would encourage the rest of the social strata to undermine the strict principle of separation of religion and state (for all practical purposes, can be understood as "no sincerely religious persons may hold any important public office whatsoever, except perhaps Imams employed by State in local mosques. And this fact that state pays the salaries of said Imams should not at all be considered against this great principle of Laiklik because we are Turks and we have our own peculiarities or in the words of Mr. Ataturk "Biz bize benzeriz" ") and therefore, in the protester's imagination, undo the gains towards "Ataturk's vision of modernity."

sounds childish. But that is the truth. Perhaps all this is a sign of Turkey becoming more mature and hence the pain. Nuri Delen, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuriDelen (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You are welcome to think that, however that is not a verifiable/reliable source. As per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. -- Cat ^chi? 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that this paragraph isn't cited at all, so can't go in the article. What source says that the rally was "mainly organized by some leftist groups under the leadership of CHP"? What source says that the main purpose of the rallies was "to prevent the election of a President whose wife is observant of Islamic traditions"? Are these claims accepted by all sides or controversial (probably the latter)? Etc. --Delirium 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the ref article for the left politics behind the rallies. Nuri Delen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuriDelen (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, please learn to sign your comments with a --~~~~. The source you provided does not establish CHP as an organizer. It does however establish a bunch of lefteist leaders attended the fifth rally which I have now mentioned on the relevant section. -- Cat ^chi? 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper web polls as sources?

I don't think citing newspaper website polls adds any credibility to what's said. Papers themselves admit they are of no real use (in small print). There may still be some point in including them as they show what the newspaper (be it 'mainstream' or not) and the readership [want to] believe but they should not be used in a way to indicate what the public opinion is. 85.101.99.27 10:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It clearly is stated that it is a poll by CNN, the claim isn't that this is the public opinion. -- Cat ^chi? 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

move this page?

I suggest moving this page to Turkish Republic protests, 2007. what do people think? The current page is not titled very specifically. — Nicholas (reply) @ 08:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any other "republic protest". Such disambiguation doesn't feel necessary. -- Cat ^chi? 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There were "republic protests" in dozens of countries in the past. The title is misleading and should change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.101.142 (talk) 19:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Is Erdogan an islamist?

The article contains the line "Erdoğan revealed his Islamist program when he initiated a move in 2004 to criminalize adultery" - i change that, for Islamism implies introducing the Sharia law. There are plenty of countries where adultery is criminalized as a crime against marriage, United States, South Korea and Canada included. I don't support it, it is driven by conservative reliogious core ideals but it is not enough to be classified as an Islamist.84.167.237.147 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course! He says lies about himself, he shows himself harmless always. But Turkish people believed him once and will never believe second time.§—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.243.145 (talk • contribs)

Adultery is not criminalized in any of those countries. In Canada, adultery is a valid reason to seek a divorce, but it's not illegal and it's certainly not punishable by any fine or imprisonment. Lpetrazickis 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For Nuri Delen

Nuri Delen, I joined the miting and I saw any kind of people there and dont show any target please.. Almost every party supporters were there except AKP.. It was demokracy miting and the aim was to show them that AKP got %25 percent of votes and AKP can not look down to other %75.. AKP should listen us.. Message was: "If AKP doesn't listen the other %75 of the country, we will delete that AKP". You got the message ? I hope you got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.243.145 (talk • contribs)

Removed from article

The current government consistently underestimates the rally attendance. The Izmir police, which reports to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, has reported the attendance as low as 500,000; a serious underestimate paralleling that of the AKP government.

I have removed the above material from the article in the absence of sources. -- Cat ^chi? 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GA?

Should this article be nominated for GA? Baristarim 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently last time it failed b/c it wasn't stable. We might need to change that scrolling ref thing though, as it supposedly causes some problems, eg. during printing the page. We also have that proseline template there. Otherwise it might satisfy all seven criteria of GA. Welcome back, by the way. Deniz^T_C 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article still lacks a stable form, when describing the rallies. The structure of the first and the fifth rallies for example are more like a narrative depicting, while the second is more or less in a timeline form, and the rest of the rallies consist little detail. Plus, the second rally section definately needs attention. Half of this section is about a video presented by Tuncay Özkan, which has a minor importance imho, since all the video was a compliation of what Erdoğan said in the past. So I am not sure to get into that much detail of that particular event as if it was a milestone of the rally (It could maybe moved to the antecedent part) Plus, unless i'm mistaken there were also some republic protests in Germany. I think they also deserve to be mentioned at least

And yes, welcome back, your absence was surely felt :) Kerem Özcan 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on November 4, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The tag has been there for some time and, apparentely, was known about before nomination. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Republic 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070422055215/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/turkey.protest.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/turkey.protest.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070428074555/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/WORLD/europe/04/24/turkey.candidate.reut/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/24/turkey.candidate.reut/index.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Republic 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416020020/http://www.tsk.mil.tr:80/anitkabir/guncel/faaliyetler/gunluk_ziyaretci/2007/nisan2007.html to http://www.tsk.mil.tr/anitkabir/guncel/faaliyetler/gunluk_ziyaretci/2007/nisan2007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213214205/http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr:80/almanak2005/details.asp?sid=5&nid=121 to http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr/almanak2005/details.asp?sid=5&nid=121
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.skyturk.tv/news.jsp?newsId=64828&c=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930222218/http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Turks_protest_ahead_of_early_elections.html?siteSect=143&sid=7813908&cKey=1179061645000 to http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Turks_protest_ahead_of_early_elections.html?siteSect=143&sid=7813908&cKey=1179061645000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317122439/http://www.cumhuriyetinesahipcik.com:80/ to http://www.cumhuriyetinesahipcik.com

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) 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)