User talk:ErbekBozok

May 2020
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, TRT World. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 15:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to TRT World. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. -◊ PRAHLAD Balaji 16:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not censoring, the paragraph criticism is not justified to present such channel. This would mean that you should not censor the same for other articles on other state owned channels that are exactly doing the same and are financed or owned by their State... check RT, check France 24 articles. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have remarked by reading simple articles about Turkey / Turkish that Wikipedia authorizes and blindly accepts many sided articles without proposing different point of views. This is propaganda when it is one sided. I thought Wikipedia is meant to be a universal encyclopedia and not a place to blasphème and give ones opinion and not the other. Please be careful about such situation. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Some people may not agree; discuss it on the talkpage first. -◊ PRAHLAD Balaji 16:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not agree on Wikipedia’s policy to write the truth and only the truth or at least put a bracket and don’t show it as a statement. Every information has many versions, in this one you are wrong and this is desperately ridiculous. Thanks for showing the obvious that Wikipedia is a sided website. Censoring want they want. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at TRT World, you may be blocked from editing. -◊ PRAHLAD Balaji 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing? Vandalize ? Sorry who are you working for? I am a free man and I see injustice in this article and wanted to correct it. You are just closing the subject saying I should discuss it first, what is that if not censorship? Is this serious? If you continue to deliberately accuse me, I will write to the higher management to state my point and also clarify that you block me for editing in an open source encyclopedia where I am trying to clarify that your article is ONE SIDED. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying anything. I can't even block you, because I'm not an admin. But you need to understand that you need to discuss some potentially controversial changes on the talkpage first. For example, blanking a whole section, as you did in this edit. And by the way, you are the one who's censoring information by removing a lot of content on articles without discussing it on the talkpage. So when you want to remove something from an article, make sure to discuss it first. -◊ PRAHLAD Balaji 17:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The editing on Wikipedia is free I guess because I was able to do it. Then there are some people monitoring it. However, one should be blind to argue on that fact that on TRT World page the paragraph about criticism brings some explanation on the channel itself. It is open accusation and some journalists’ personal opinion. This has nothing to do with what should and encyclopedic review be... if that was applied everywhere, I don’t believe you would be so happy. Wikipedia should state fact and should not take side. When stating something, the opposite version should be mentioned for information and culture purpose. ErbekBozok (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right about that; however, Wikipedia isn't criticizing anyone; it's just talking about some people criticizing something. -◊ PRAHLAD <sup style="color:#707">Balaji 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, ErbekBozok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to France 24 does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! IamNotU (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I thank you very much. I wanted to show that Wikipedia’s NPOV policy is not respected all the time. I understand that your bots and viewers can be very effective and active but I have realized it is done only when this is not confirm to a certain point of view.

My example was on a simple situation.

I am not taking sides and want to be an objective contributor.

However take a look at the example by yourself:

I went to edit TRT World page on the paragraph « Criticism » as it was mentioning some journalists saying it is a propaganda channel. I have have received immediate answer and reverted editing and arguments and felt like people were literally watch dogging this. I know this is a state owned media and obviously would do its own culture and advertisement on their own point of view.

I then went to France 24 which is also a State owned channel and obviously monitored by the French State. I tested editing this page and added that is was mentioned as State owned propaganda channel. Then “surprise” I have received à reverting message saying my edit is not complying with Wikipedia rules.

What I am trying to say is that you should carefully monitor and remove allegations and personal statements from an encyclopedic review.

In one case you fight to keep saying one is propaganda and on the other one you clearly fight against the mentioning of the word propaganda.

This means you are taking sides. This means you are not complying with your own NPOV.

I hope I am understood. ErbekBozok (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that on the same Wikipedia you mention at the article “propaganda through media” the following:

“To explain the close associations between media and propaganda, Richard Alan Nelson observed propaganda as a form of persuasion with intention with the aid of controlled transmission of single-sided information through mass media.[3] Mass media and propaganda are inseparable.

Mass media, as a system for spreading and relaying information and messages to the public, plays a role in amusing, entertaining and informing individuals with rules and values that situate them in social structure.[4] Therefore, propaganda creates conflicts among society's differing classes. Nowadays, in a media engulfed society, mass media is the main platform and output for carrying out acts of propaganda and for pushing forward agendas.

Today, various amounts of modern media can be used to supply propaganda to its intended audience such as, radio, television, films posters handouts music smartphones, just to name a few.[5]” ErbekBozok (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Both channels are owned by one owner which is the State, both are rolling on mass media, and both are pushing their own values and point of views. So why one should be propaganda and not the other? ErbekBozok (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Because, according to the analysis of independent, reliable, published expert sources, one follows accepted journalism ethics and standards better than the other. You wrote: I am not taking sides and want to be an objective contributor, but you changed the short description of France 24 from "Television channel based in Paris" to "State owned french propaganda Television channel based in Paris". You did not provide any reliable source for this, nor can I find one, and the source you later added to the talk page actually says that it is not propaganda. So your change was clearly not adhering to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, the three core content policies. On the other hand, numerous sources can be found that characterize TRT World as distributing propaganda, as cited in the article. I can add more. Wikipedia explains the different viewpoints published by reliable sources, without giving undue weight to any particular source, or making statements that are not verified by any source. If you feel a source is not reliable, you can bring it up on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel an article is not fairly and proportionally representing all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources, you can also bring that up on the article's talk page, or at the NPOV noticeboard. You need to have not only reliable sources, but consensus when editing an article.
 * You are correct that most Wikipedia articles are being "watched", see Help:Watchlist. This is done by regular Wikipedia editors like you and me, to ensure that the policies and guidelines are adhered to. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean there are no rules. If you don't follow the rules, your edits will be undone, and your future edits may receive closer scrutiny. Wikipedia has extensive procedures for ensuring a neutral point of view and the use of reliable sources. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the content policies I mentioned above, and processes like "bold, revert, discuss", dispute resolution, and so on.
 * Please also be careful about making accusations of misbehavior against other volunteer editors. You seem to imply above that both and I are agents or shills of some organization: Sorry who are you working for? and: I then went to France 24 which is also a State owned channel and obviously monitored by the French State. I tested editing this page and added that is was mentioned as State owned propaganda channel. Then “surprise” I have received à reverting message saying my edit is not complying with Wikipedia rules. Please be aware that this is a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. See specifically the Arbitration Committee's decisions about casting aspersions:
 * --IamNotU (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * “The desire  of  France  to  have  its  own  global  television  channel,  reinforced,  in  particular,  by  the experience of CNN influence on public opinion during the Gulf War, as well as by the emergence of new international TV channels in the global media space (Euronews, BBC World, Al Jazeera, etc.), triggered the launch in  December 2006  of  the new  television channel  named France  24: on  December 5,  broadcasting began on  the  Internet, the  next day  – French  and  English TV channels.  The following  year, April  2,  the Arabic-language TV channel was launched3. For the  purpose of  uniting  in one  structure of  all state-owned  media in  France  relating to  foreign broadcasting,  on  April  4,  2008,  the  state-owned  Audiovisual  extérieur  de  la  France  (AEF)  holding  is established. This holding included radio  services RFI together with Monte  Carlo Doualiya, and television service  France 24.  In  2014,  the holding  changed  its  name  to  France  Médias  Monde. According  to  the official website of the holding, its weekly audience is about 100 million. Creation of a new structure, which included both radio and television broadcasting services, caused the  need  for  re-stating  foreign  broadcasting  tasks.  The  law  of  March  5,  2009,  amended  the  Law  of September 30, 1986. According to it, the company responsible for the French audiovisual sector abroad has a  mission to  promote the  dissemination  and promotion  of French  language,  of French  and Francophone cultures, as well as the influence of France in the world, notably through the programming and broadcasting of  television  and  radio  programs  or  online  public  communication  services...”
 * ISSN 2336‐5439 EUROPEAN POLITICALAND LAW DISCOURSE.Volume 5Issue42018 ErbekBozok (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand where you are driving this conversation but I’ll stop after that. You just seem not understanding my point.
 * When you read the definition of propaganda in media and then read the purpose of French State fully financing and owning a TV channel and openly saying that it “has a mission to promote the dissemination and promotion of French language, of French and Francophone cultures, as well as the influence of France in the world, notably through the programming and broadcasting of television and radio programs or online public communication services...” what’s wrong with saying that it is propaganda ? You see it as outrageous? What is your point when you say “ Because, according to the analysis of independent, reliable, published expert sources, one follows accepted journalism ethics and standards better than the other” : good luck with that really. One should not fall into such shortcut. You should accept that any media is a propaganda mean and stop thinking I should say it here and not there... if Wikipedia is encyclopedic then you should not add criticism or comments only from one side. I hope you get my point. I won’t be clarifying much more. Just read again and you will understand maybe. ErbekBozok (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that unless an editor can cite a reliable source that states what they are arguing, nobody is interested in their point. Combining two sources, one that says France 24's mission includes "dissemination and promotion of French language, of French and Francophone cultures", etc., and another that gives some description of propaganda, to reach a conclusion that France 24 is a propaganda channel, is a WP:SYNTHESIS that reaches a conclusion not reached by either source. Unless you present evidence in the form of significant reliable sources that specifically state the viewpoint that France 24 is a propaganda channel, you may not put it in the article.
 * All we do on Wikipedia is summarize and repeat what others have written and published elsewhere. We are not journalists, and we do not do original research and analysis. If France 24 is widely considered to be a propaganda channel, it should be easy to find reliable sources in books, reliable newspapers, and scholarly papers saying so. If not, there is nothing left to say about it.
 * PS, please indent your replies, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When you read the definition of propaganda in media and then read the purpose of French State fully financing and owning a TV channel and openly saying that it “has a mission to promote the dissemination and promotion of French language, of French and Francophone cultures, as well as the influence of France in the world, notably through the programming and broadcasting of television and radio programs or online public communication services...” what’s wrong with saying that it is propaganda ? You see it as outrageous? What is your point when you say “ Because, according to the analysis of independent, reliable, published expert sources, one follows accepted journalism ethics and standards better than the other” : good luck with that really. One should not fall into such shortcut. You should accept that any media is a propaganda mean and stop thinking I should say it here and not there... if Wikipedia is encyclopedic then you should not add criticism or comments only from one side. I hope you get my point. I won’t be clarifying much more. Just read again and you will understand maybe. ErbekBozok (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that unless an editor can cite a reliable source that states what they are arguing, nobody is interested in their point. Combining two sources, one that says France 24's mission includes "dissemination and promotion of French language, of French and Francophone cultures", etc., and another that gives some description of propaganda, to reach a conclusion that France 24 is a propaganda channel, is a WP:SYNTHESIS that reaches a conclusion not reached by either source. Unless you present evidence in the form of significant reliable sources that specifically state the viewpoint that France 24 is a propaganda channel, you may not put it in the article.
 * All we do on Wikipedia is summarize and repeat what others have written and published elsewhere. We are not journalists, and we do not do original research and analysis. If France 24 is widely considered to be a propaganda channel, it should be easy to find reliable sources in books, reliable newspapers, and scholarly papers saying so. If not, there is nothing left to say about it.
 * PS, please indent your replies, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, please indent your replies, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)