Talk:Nury Turkel

Notability
Hello! Mr. Turkel is one of the nine commissioners on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. I would like to ask, at this point, what criteria has Mr. Turkel's page failed to meet? I will see if I can find the relevant sources that would show notability. I know he has a biography at the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom page. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that service seems to be the only difference between when this was deleted and now. It was enough that rather than taking it back to AfD I marked it as reviewed. However, that commission is not, to my knowledge, something which conveys notability under any notability guideline - the applicable ones here being WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Hence the tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some more sources- am I reaching the threshold? Also, I am having trouble finding his official, legal Chinese character name from when he was a Chinese citizen, so I ask for patience on that front. There does seem to be literature about Mr. Turkel in Mandarin Chinese media sources. Names I have found so far: 努尔﹒图凯勒 / 特克爾 / 图凯尔 Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , here's the problem from 2018. Turkel is quoted in the media a fair amount and is even published in the media a fair amount. However, he's not actually profiled/written about by reliable independent secondary sources. Like the best profile I found last time was from his own law firm which is obviously not RS. Do you have any reliable independent secondary sources discussing him as a topic rather than merely quoting him about something else? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked through everything yet, but here are some independent sources:    I have started to add these into the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I plan to focus on Mandarin Chinese sources about him tomorrow. Unfortunately, I can't read Uyghur, but I will try for that too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you're running into some of the same issues as before. I only have access to a snippet of AFR but that's the most promising of the bunch. The second source is a speaker's bio, the third one is again a self provided bio for Congress, and the last is an interview (which is not considered independent). Turkel is good at promotion and appearing places but that alone does not convey notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to an archive with the full article, comrade haha jk You should be able to see the full article with this-- Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that article is definitely helpful towards establishing notability. If there was another article (or even better two) like that I'd have no questions about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Here's a source on Turkel from the Office of General Counsel in the US DoD that describes Turkel's life in a great deal of detail: Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be a WP:primary rather than secondary source. Reliable primary sources can be useful for verifying some information but are not generally as useful for establishing notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (See comment immediately after this one) "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."..."Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." provides an author's own thinking: "After a thorough review of the record, including Applicant’s testimony, all exhibits, all relevant policies, and the applicable adjudicative guideline, I make the following findings of fact" based on primary sources: "The Government called no witnesses and introduced two exhibits (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2), which were entered in the record without objection."..."Applicant timely submitted six additional documents, which I marked as Ex. F through Ex. K and entered in the record without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 17, 2012."..."I take administrative notice of the following facts, which appear in official U.S. government documents, and which were summarized in documents provided to Applicant and to me:"..."Another medical professional with whom Applicant worked"..."Applicant’s program manager praised Applicant"..."In May 2011, Applicant’s managers made the following recommendations" Your position seems to be that this is a primary account of the life of Turkel instead of a synthesized source about the life of Turkel. I contend that this document includes a secondary and interpretative component synthesized by Judge Anthony concerning the various facts about Mr. Turkel. I see the decision itself as primary (like "those experiences" mentioned in the above sentence), whereas the synthesis of testimony and exhibits (both from the government and Turkel) into a biographical outline of Turkel is secondary (like the component of the military historian's book about the war is secondary). For instance, Judge Anthony says that the information about Turkel's college studies and folk dancing (page 3) is based on a synthesis of Exhibit 1 (provided by the government) and the hearing transcript. A primary source on the subject would be a photo of his college degrees, not a synthesized report by a judge a decade or two after the events occurred. In conclusion, in the document provided, we indeed are not one step removed from the event of the decision that was reached. The document is primary to that decision. However, we are a step removed from the content synthesized based on the various exhibits and testimony presented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC) (modified) (clicked publish accidentally)
 * I have removed the source; I conflated aspects of Turkel's life with that of the applicant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * &, Hello, I have some sources which related to Mr. Turkel, here are three of them (Turkel-1), (Turkel-2),(Turkel-3) which talk about Turkel's life, especially the second part of the first article by Uyghur Academy, hope can help. But these article are in Uyghur language, we can use google translater to verify the information, glad to hear from you, thanks.--KH561 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! Am I getting any closer to Wikipedia notability here? I feel like I'm slowly circling in on it, but I'm not sure. Are there other cases like this that are on the edge that I can learn from? I'm still looking for that 'slam dunk' second indpendent analysis of him. Please keep in mind that we know relatively little about Xinjiang/East Turkistan on Wikipedia, and this person is getting all kinds of coverage and a government commissionership. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you feel that you've addressed the tag feel free to remove it. I will not object though I admit to just being too plum tired to really dive too deep into this issue at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a lot of mistakes here, but also some progress. I don't want to go too fast, but I do think that I am in notability terriotry, or if not, I'm inching closer to a better and better case for notability. I'm going to remove the header for now, but I recognize that this may be considered premature and may need to be restored. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Untitled section
@Wiiformii @AgisdeSparte The content been updated is from the original referenced source, stop vandalizing the content.

But according to the article, there is simply no basis to support allegations that the board member engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct (link) WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * it's an allegation Wiiformii (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wiiformii Yes, but it's part of the original article, so why it can't be here. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What basis even is there? The part you added gives undue weight, see Undue Wiiformii (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This is just an accusation, and the current status of the investigation can't be considered Undue weight because this content can't be considered minority views as it came directly from the investigation conducted by the law firm Isler Dare. Please read the article first. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Law firms obviously will defend the accused, although the accusation may be wrong or right it still is not a neutral source and you added your own analysis into the article. Wiiformii (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is your personal POV. Please use the exact words from the original sources. Thanks. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wiiformii. The pulls a quote from the RFA article about another article which is quoting lawyers. You can't just drop the quotes and attribution like that, especially when the RFA article itself then immediately mentions the discrepancy between the group's initial denials of Turkel's harassment and its statement on Friday. We don't have a independent reliable source saying that there is simply no basis to support allegations. This is directly from the lawyers involved. — MarkH21talk 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have edited it with exact words from the existing referenced source, but still get reverted. Please edit not revert. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to build consensus here, not just edit war your preferred version over multiple editors who have contested it. — MarkH21talk 13:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov WP:NPOV .You are deleting a lot of other content. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've continued to revert your preferred version over 3 other editors, added vague language like Turkel reportedly resigned from his position as chair in May 2024 when the resignation is clearly reported in this RFA news article and the UHRP itself, and removed mentions of the reason given by those same sources.You're also editing with the word "we" (as in ). Are you representing multiple people or an organization? — MarkH21talk 02:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarkH21 Thank you for your comments. Initially, I did some revert/undo because you and other editors were taking that action, no matter how I edited it. But I don't want to create an edit war, so I have asked for help from other more experienced wiki editors, and the current edit is the result of that. No, I don't represent any org. I represent only myself. I read those sources for reference and didn't see any direct accusation. The original edit used misleading words like "multiple," which doesn't exist in the source and was structured in a very confusing way. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have asked for help from other more experienced wiki editors, and the current edit is the result of that. What? The edits have been entirely done by you, against three other editors who disagree with you.The RFA article literally says amid sexual harassment claims and accused of harassing women at the 2019 and 2022 editions of Oslo Freedom Forum, and separately of making a “sexual advance” following a work meeting in 2021. That's multiple. — MarkH21talk 18:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the Wikipedia need quality not only quantity, but thanks for your comment. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)