Talk:2021 Turkey wildfires

Arson claim
When I click "English" on the archive I get a message "The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." As it is blocked here could somebody outside Turkey look on https://atesincocuklariinisiyatifi.com/en and see if the arson claim is there in English please Chidgk1 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The site does never directly claim that they've caused the recent fires, and it reads more like a manifesto rather than talking about any recent wildfires. It is a (probably truthful) interpretation based on the timing, implications and tone of the published text, which makes the statement original research. Nevertheless it is a self-published primary source and we can't even actually verify if the site is an official channel or not (it's been online for 4 months). I think it's a clear WP:PRIMARY violation. It is stated that "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."


 * In a couple of days we will have reliable sources about PKK and the fires, but as for now I highly doubt that we should be including primary and unreliable sources and feed the misinformation cycle any further. Even PKK mouthpiece ANF has not claimed anything. --Gogolplex (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed as suggested thanks. Why do you think "In a couple of days we will have reliable sources about PKK and the fires"? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , ANF literally reports every thing, even the most minor ones AÇİ had done since 2019. If the AÇİ really claimed it it'd be odd they won't be publishing anything about the topic. Also Turkish government will probably make a statement in the following days about arson claims. Minister of Interior already said that there was no information concerning wildfires and arson attacks. --Gogolplex (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , the claim AÇİ had claimed the fires published by Yeni Şafak and Karar, both conservative and heavily biased sources with questionable journalistic reliability, are based on a (since then deleted) tweet posted by an unverified Twitter account (Rojava Network). There had been a discussion on Turkish Wikipedia about the topic and it was stated that the articles were unreliable. It is also thoroughly problematic to add it as if it is some form of truth, rather than a claim made by a newspaper. I don't think that we should be including anything based on unverifiable Twitter accounts, whether it's secondary or not. The statement should be deleted. --Gogolplex (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t agree. We also have a primary source for the claim. The discussion on the Turkish vikipedi does not refer to the original statement. It’s very obvious they claimed it, and of course it’s not proven that they did it or not (yet). And I think the way how it is reflected in the article is quite balanced. Roguehider (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you possibly add a link here to the discussion on Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How to tell which Turkish language sources are reliable?
I asked generally on Turkish Vikipedia about a year ago but no reply. Any idea? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a very hard question. You develop a sense over years, therefore it’s quite subjective. Roguehider (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hooray I see someone has now created https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar As I have never heard of Karar could one of you add it to the list? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for quick response - "PolitikYol Haber Sitesi" has now been cited here. If you could add that to the list then we will have covered all the Turkish language sources in this article. And don't forget to green tick https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/Duyuru_panosu#BBC_T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e :-) Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn’t know if I should be the one to mark it. As I’ve opened the discussion. I think I’ll wait a couple of days and tick if there are no further discusssion. With regards to PolitikYol, I have never heard of them. Roguehider (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Whoever tagged "unreliable source" do you mean "Yeni Şafak" or "Karar" or both? The discussion at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/Duyuru_panosu#Karar_(Gazete) has ben closed but https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar#Kaynaklar still shows it as under discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it was for Yeni Safak, as the jury is still out, considering there's no on-going dispute about the reliability of Karar I've remvoed the tag. The question remains though, now that we have a secondary source, is it ok to cite the primary source? Roguehider (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure but I would be interested to know whether the claim is on the English part of the primary source website - perhaps someone outside Turkey or with a VPN can tell us. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So I guess we’ll need to assume, reliable unless disputed. What do you think? Roguehider (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have closed the talk for Karar in Turkish Wikipedia because Rougehider himself said that he had "no doubts" that the source was "reliable" in his request. Hence, we decided we didn't need to discuss it.--V. E. (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Karar seems to have been removed from the list but I don't understand why - to make it easy for people like me who have never heard of it before now should it not be in the list as green or pink or red or whatever your decision was? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The person who requested the source to be examined himself said "he was not suspicious of reliability of the source". So, I thought his request of the source to be examined was unsubstantial.--V. E. (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

List of unreliable sources

 * Daily Sabah is an media organization that acts under Turkuvaz Media Group which has close government ties. Thus its independency is in question. Furthermore they engaged in some controversies as stated in their article.
 * Anadolu Agency is not reliable as stated in WP:RSPS.
 * TRT is not reliable per WP:RSPS.--V. E. (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, Karar just quotes a Twitter post for the claim which is not reliable.--V. E. (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you object to Daily Sabah I suggest you ask to get it listed at WP:RSPS so that future editors don't have to repeat the same arguments. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Those news media are known to parrot governmental statements, event when they don't make sense. I saw articles on their low journalistic standard, by the Guardian. I will try to find it for RSPS. Yug (talk)  15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Merhaba Türkler - could any native Turkish speakers reading this try and bring the discussion about Yeni Şafak at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/Duyuru_panosu#Albayrak_Medya_Grubu_bile%C5%9Fenleri to an official conclusion and update https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar with a suitable color? It is being used again as a cite here. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm not on Turkish Wikipedia, and I'm not a native Turkish speaker, the arson claim is a contentious issue, and until Turkish Wikipedia decides that Yeni Şafak is indeed a reliable source, I'm strongly against its use, as it is an openly pro-government newspaper. I don't know about freenews but its sourcing is directly from Yeni Şafak too, so removing both for now. Uness232 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome about reliability of the source in question, I would not suggest you to trust source examinations in Turkish Wikipedia as much as the ones in English Wikipedia because we don't have a well-defined RfC method. In fact, our RfC page is only kept as a "historical reference". As of August 6th, no examination seperated the discussion from the survey which I think hampers the quality the discussion. Also far less people participate in the debates. P.S. I am not telling you to not to trust them at all, just not as much as you do to ones in English Wikipedia and also note that the page is on the "brainstortming" state (beyin fırtınası).--V. E. (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

About those red pines Sabah mentioned...
So, I was anticipating this mistake from a Turkish source, and I think we have a very Daily Sabah moment in our hands. @Chidgk1, you are definitely not at fault for making this edit, but sadly it is the victim of a rather interesting error. It mentions (and indeed you do in the article) that the burnt forest was of the state tree of Minnesota, the red pine (resinosa); a pine that not only does not, but can not exist in the Mediterranean climate of southern Turkey. In fact, the red pine's closest relative is the scots pine (sylvestris) which, similarly to the red pine, only grows in areas with cold winters (ex. north-central Turkey, higher ground around cities like Bolu). Most likely, what they mean is the Turkish pine (brutia), which is in fact called the equivalent of red pine in Turkish.

The reason I'm not making the edit yet is because I want to get an opinion from more experienced editors on what is best practice in this situation. Should I fix the source in clear cut cases like this, or does that still count as a No original research violation? And if it does, I'm guessing that deleting the source would be best practice, but, well, is it? Uness232 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Duh thanks for letting me know - I should have clicked on "red pine" and spotted that as I had never heard of "red pine" before in my life. Changed it to Turkish pine but taking this article off my watch list as I am not really interested in Wikipedia policies so will let someone else take it from here. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mishka Bochkarev turkish wildfires-4.jpg