User talk:Tufankaya

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from MV Mavi Marmara. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nath1991 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nath, thak you for your help. Actually I am new at Wikipedia and still learning the details. Since you have more experience on this website I want to ask you how I can edit a biased "contribution" that has no relationship with a certain article. On "Mavi Marmara" article some people are making edits that have no relation with the article. The purpose of these edits are to support their biased personal opinions. Everything seem correct on theory, there is an information, there is a source, etc. But the edit have no neutral contribution on the article rater than supporting their cases. An example is as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MV_Mavi_Marmara&action=historysubmit&diff=369864531&oldid=369454589

How can I edit such "contributions"?

Thanks in advance


 * Hi Tufankaya, I saw your note at Nath's talk page. The first detail you could learn is to end your posts on talk pages with four tildes (" ~ "). That automatically translates into your username and the current date and time, which is very helpful for everyone so they know who is commenting and when. If you try editing a page and just type four tildes then hit "Show preview" you will see how this works.


 * As to your concern with the Mavi Marmara, the edit you link to doesn't look all that bad to me. At Wikipedia we try to present all notable views on a topic, according to their weight (general public and expert acceptance) and in a fashion that doesn't express any particular point of view. The view of IMFA seems relevant to this topic and I don't see any big problem within the body of the article.


 * Do you disagree with the statement that the Mavi Marmara was not carrying humanitarian aid? If so, you need to find a reliable source that says it in fact was carrying such cargo. and we can modify the article to make that clear. I don't see any reason why IMFA would straight-out lie about something like this, so it seems to be a valid statement of interest to our readers. Mavi Marmara was part of the convoy but was not itself carrying aid.


 * The next thing you could do is to find reliable sources that document the reasons why the ship was there in the first place. To me, the answer is pretty obvious - to support a flotilla of ships, some of which were carrying humanitarian materiel likely to be interdicted by Israeli forces, and to make a point about whether a sovereign country really can just decide to have a blockade wherever it wants. But my opinion (and yours) is not really worth a lot here. You need to research the subject carefully and help to build up a balanced account of the incident that includes all the noteworthy views on what happened. Even the views you disagree with - that's what we do here.


 * I'm going to change the wording of that bit from "reported" to "stated" but other than that I think it's fair to keep it. Franamax (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like Franamax has sorted it out :) Nath1991 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Franamax, thanks for your help. As I said I am new here and appreciate your message. I will start to add Tufankaya (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) from now on. About Mavi Marmara case I think that wikipedia is really wonderful when it is about articles such as mushrooms, astrophysics, mozart, etc. But I observe that when it comes to disputed matters everyone is playing a "contribution" game to support their biased point of views. I think Mavi Marmara was one of them. You point that views of IMFA is relevant to this topic and I also agree with you, yes there is a relevance, article is about the ship and IMFA give a statement about the ship. But this article is a ship that created a conflict between Israeli government and Turkey or Arap world or international society or islamic charity organisations or Hamas, or bloody terrorists, whatever. At least there is one neutral point that Israeli government is one of the "sides" at this conflict. Don't you think that editing the statement of IMFA at the end of this article but not editing the statement of any "other side" makes this article biased? We can play with the words to support our cases. I can edit at the end of Jewish holocaust article as Joseph Goebbels stated that "Allied powers blame Reich state that we sent Jews to death camps by trains but according to our records no Jewish person is beed transferred to concentration camps by passanger vagoons of Reich trains" Yes, this statement is true, really no Jewish is sent to death camps with passanger trains, because they sent them with cargo trains. Israeli government claimed that the Gaza flotilla have no aim to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza people and this edit smell like "Islamists claim that they came to Gaza shores for humanitarian reasons but we could not find any humanitarian aid inside the ship" Do we really have to play this game? Yes there were no humanitarian aid cargo inside Mavi Marmara, because, Mavi Marmara was a passanger ship and people who bring these aids were travelling with this ship and cargo ships were followed Mavi Marmara. So yes, Mavi Marmara was not carrying any humanitarian aid, good. So may I learn what is the significance of this "contribution"? People can play with the words to support their cases but I believe this damage the respectability of this website. Actually English is not my native language so I am not that much good on playing with words but I can see that there is something wrong here. Tufankaya (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to help where I can, you'll find that most people here are like that. There is quite a lot to learn.


 * You are correct that in disputed areas, some people from opposing "sides" try to rewrite the article to tell their own "story". This has been such a problem in the Palestine-Israel area that special sanctions have been put in place to let administrators act quickly when there are problems, see WP:ARBPIA. I disagree with you though that there is a problem with the edit. It is a verifiable fact, not an opinion of IMFA or a justification for the killings. It doesn't try to lead the reader to any conclusion. It would be different if we were quoting an Israeli official as saying "these people were criminals and terrorists", then we would need to add a quote from someone else saying "they were innocent victims trying to right a terrible injustice", but in this case the statement just lays out facts and lets the reader decide for themselves on a very complex issue (the law of the sea among other things). For me, omitting the fact would not help our readers.


 * Also, just for your information, it's usually best not to use comparisons to Nazi Germany to make your point. That is also something else that people do a lot here and elsewhere on the internet, enough that it is called Godwin's Law (Mike Godwin is now our lawyer!). Your comparison is valid, it's just better not to use it. And actually I think the encyclopedia would be better if it had both Goebbels' statement and the fact that they used boxcars, because it would help the reader learn about how "propaganda" became the same thing as lying (propaganda used to mean providing information before Goebbels came along).


 * Good luck with your editing and if there's anything else I can help with, just ask! Franamax (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advices Franamax. I specially find Godwin's Law enjoying, I would not know that:)

Yes, IMFA statement is a verifiable fact and do not try to justify anything. But it does try to lead the reader to a conclusion that flotilla were not carrying humanitarian aids. At least the edit in Mavi Marmara imply this. It looks very clear from my point of view. I still think that if the article finish with the statement of Israeli side, it also should contain another edit from the opposed side, too. Maybe someone else do it, not a big deal for me.

I am nice to meet with you, lets keep in contact:) Tufankaya (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. The IMFA quote only addresses this one ship. When you click through to the reference link, they partly list the cargo they seized from the other ships. It is wheelchairs, crutches, medicine, etc. This is clearly humanitarian aid and the Israeli government is saying itself that is what the cargo ships were carrying. All the sentence says is that Mavi Marmara itself was not carrying aid. Yes of course the question comes up as to why that ship was there. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that IDF was right to shoot nine people, it just presents a fact and lets the reader decide on the good or bad parts. I don't care whether or not a partisan of Israel put the text into the article, it is a statement of fact that has a source and it has helped me to learn more about this very tragic incident. More interesting to me is to put myself in the place of the soldier who was told to climb out of a helicopter and jump onto a ship travelling at sea. That person had no connection to the political decisions behind all this, they just did their job - but they ended up killing someone. Would you enjoy life if that was you?


 * If the sentence doesn't look right at the very end of the article and you can think of a better place for it, feel free to move it! Have a read at our "be bold" guideline, just go do it. It's always best if your change might be controversial to explain it on the article talk page first, and stay relaxed if your change gets reverted. If that happens, discuss things on the article talk page. It's an area that admins watch pretty closely, so really, stay calm and friendly in your approach. (Which you have done a very good job of so far by the way!)


 * I am usually around, even if I don't edit much I read a LOT, so ask me for any problems that come up and I will try to help. Right now, I don't agree with you that there is a problem with that sentence. Maybe it could go to a better place in the article, I dunno. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Franamax, actually after I read your last post I realised that our disagreement is not only about why IMFA statement is at the article, but also about the incident itself. Yes I also click the reference link before and yes IMFA list the cargo ships and some of the humanitarian aids, I have no question there. I thought I was explained my objection above but maybe you do not realise because of my English. (Btw, I am also at Wikipedia to improve my English:) My objection is about the head of the reference and editing that sentence at the end of the article (IMFA found no humanitarian aid at Mavi Marmara) Of course they can not find any cargo at this ship because this is the passanger ship and standart cargo ships can carry max 10-20 people so activists would go to Gaza with a seperate passanger ship. I was thought it was clear, but then I read your sentence Yes of course the question comes up as to why that ship was there. This was what I am trying to say, IMFA is poorly trying to imply that Mavi Marmara was not there for humanitarian purposes and surprisingly even you are effected from the same thing. The very big majority of the world have no question about why Mavi Marmara was there. Because it was carrying the activists from all over the world (including EU parliements, Nobel peace prize winners, etc. Not only bloody terrorists as IMFA is trying to imply with playing with their interesting logical conclusions. One of the aims of the flotilla was of course to confront the illegal blockade of Israel government against Gaza people and those passangers was at the ship to protest this blockade. Obviously you are a clever and honest person and I really can not understand why everything is not clear from your side. I do not think I am thinking with a biased mentality on this issue. I am trying to understand both sides, but still can not get your and IMFA conclusion. You say that "this is a complex issue and I am still trying to understand what really happened there" but I really do not find the case that much complicated. If we identify such cases as "tragic, complicated, unlucky, etc", then someone else from Middle East edit the discussion page of September 11 article as tragic, complicated and unlucky incident to cause the death of 3000 people, but yes of course the question comes up as to what was USA doing at Iraq? Would you agree with such conclusion, would you compare the killing of 3000 people with USA foreign policy on Middle East? Personally I would be very angry if someone make such comparison or do not clearly condemn 9/11 and continue with the reasons of such atrocity. Because I would knew that I could not tell these to the families of the victims. That is why Mavi Marmara incident is very clear according to my point of view. Israeli government attacked to a harmless passanger ship and killed 9 person because they were confronting Israeli foreign policies. Thats it. That is why I stated that we should not play with the words.

Opps, I realised that I deeply entered inside the case rather than Wikipedia tips, I hope you will not be offended. I know that you are not purposedly state excuses about the incident, so my little anger is not on you but to this IMFA propoganda. Nowadays people make same comparisons on Armenian genocide in Turkey. People say that perishing of 1.000.000 Armenian is very tragic, but, Armenians were revolted for independence when Turkey was at war. Finding such excuses just makes me crazy. (By the way I am Turkish)

Thanks for the be bold link. I found the Wikipedia guidelines from that link and it will be better for me to read all before:) Take care... Tufankaya (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the original edit in question. Just about any article about a ship ought to describe the ship's passengers and cargo, which are obviously relevant to understanding the ship's role. Above my edit, the article says, "It joined a flotilla of ships operated by activist groups from 37 different countries with the intention of directly confronting the Gaza blockade and bringing in humanitarian aid and supplies." Readers could easily misread this and think that Mavi Marmara was carrying humanitarian aid. Perhaps my edit should go directly below that excerpt. IHTFP (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Helo IHTFP, You can edit however you wish. It seems that you make your best to deceive yourself but everything is so clear according to the rest of the world. I explained everything above, if you do not want to understand I can not force you to do so. So I do not see any reason to participate your little game. Good luck! Tufankaya (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tufankaya, it seems to me that maybe it is you who sees games being played where none exist. As I have said twice now, the sentence to which you object is a simple statement of fact. It does not try to draw any conclusion, it does not try to present a view of IMFA, it does not try to say that people "deserved" to be killed. It just says that no humanitarian aid was found on the ship. It does not say that the ship had no legitimate purpose. Please do not try to place me onto some "side" because I disagree with you, I think for myself and I have no alignment with anyone in the P-I dispute. If we were sitting together in my kitchen I would say much much more about my feelings about both sides and the many wrong (and sometimes right) things that each has done - but this is not my kitchen, this is Wikipedia. If I saw a game being played here, I would act to correct it. You will find that you have much more success here if you discuss matters calmly and don't make insinuations against your fellow editors. Regards, Franamax (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, I do not try to place you on one of the sides but you should know that being neutral is not always to list what each side had done one by one equally, sometimes being "neutral" also comes to a conclusion to be a "side". Because thinks are not always complicated, sometimes they are clear and obvious. So yes I see games being played here. It is very obvious according to my point of view, but I have no time or willingness to contribute or to correct it. I do not make insinuations (it is a new word for me, thanks) I clearly stated what I thought above and if you still disagree I have nothing more to do about it. Tufankaya (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)