Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal name changes in Turkey


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Merging has been proposed, but what the merge target is is not quite as clear.

Since one of the priveleges of being the AFD closer is that I get the last word, I will end with a plea. I found some of the comments in this AFD personalized the issue by calling the nomination "bad faith" and bringing up history of abusing the AFD process. I shall not delve into whether those accusations are true, but I ask that people address the issue of the article instead of the issue of the nominator. Arguments concerning whether this event is truly notable or just a news story are valid, and brought up by numerous participants in good faith. It is much better to address the issue that relate to the article than to bring up the issues related to a participant in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Animal name changes in Turkey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

3 animal names have been changed locally in the Latin code. Possibly not even recognised by the concerned international org. Not notable. Typically a POV imposition through a non-issue. Not notable at all. I propose its deletion. E4024 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, not sure why this should be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Merge is a better suggestion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, needless WP:POVFORK. Brandmeistertalk  16:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article talks about the xenophobic instances by the Turkish government in scientific names of these animals. BBC, Reuters wrote about this topic. Definitely notable.-- Ե րևանցի talk  19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Once again, this is a bad faith deletion proposal. This is an obvious notable policy initiated by a notable entity (Turkish government) and has been reported by notable sources (BBC, Reuters, Radikal, and etc.) In addition to what I have discussed in a previous deletion proposal by the same user, he has continued to propose deletions and speedy deletions in 3 Armenian/Greek related articles in a matter of 12 hours (Miran Pastourma, Harutyun Bezciyan, and now this one). Once again, I insist the user respect Civility, Assume good faith, and the Five Pillars. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete : Purely an acdemamic suggestion. Encyclopedically not notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I would also like to add that the collaborative efforts of Azeri/Turkish sympathetic Wikipedians must be considered on each and every one of these deletion proposals towards Greek and Armenian articles. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an Azeri/Turkish/Armenian/sympathetic Wikipedian.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article about taxonomic names and not about Greece or Armenia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is discussed in recognized media sources such as BBC and Reuters. Typing just one of these animals on GoogleBooks yields dozens of results. Such initiatives by the Turkish government are notable enough in themselves that it being internationally recognized is not necessary. KJ1890 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Turkey has no authority over taxnominic names, despite their attempts to do so with conspiritorist overtones; this is something that should, at most, be a footnote in the individual species'/subspecies' articles. This is no more notable than if somebody tried to change the name of Notopthalmus viridescens louisianensis to take "Louisiana" out. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - and warn nominator. This is beginning to look like serious misuse of the AfD process which could end up at ANI. Put "animal" "name" "change" "turkey" into Google Books and a whole sheaf of WP:RS pop up. Nicole F. Watts Activists in Office: Kurdish Politics and Protest in Turkey 2010 Page xiv "As late as 2005 the Turkish government announced it would change the proper names of a number of animals whose names referenced Kurds and Armenians." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except no proper names have been "changed". It's scientific names they're trying to change - which they have precisely zero authority to do. The media coverage was one spurt as everybody shook their heads at it, and that's all. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But Bushranger, that is exactly why it appears notable (to me at least, and enough to stir WP:RS-ish media). I have never heard of any faction in any country even proposing their own set of latin taxonomic names before. And if it has ever been proposed I'd expect there to be a standalone article such as localisation of taxonomic names or something. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If I may bud in, what makes this significant isn't necessarily the taxonomic or scientific name changes in and of itself. It is the main intent and underlying nature of forced assimilation practices of the Turkish government. Words likes "divisive" and "Turkish unity" were used to help justify the case. According to the sources, some Turkish officials stated that "the names are being used to argue that Armenians or Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were found" which implies that the mere existence of Kurds and Armenians is being eradicated on behalf of the Turkish government. This in itself is significant as minorities or the mere mentioning of them are in the process of being forcefully destroyed. I'm sure BBC and Reuteurs wouldn't have talked about it if it were say as innocent as removing Louisiana from Notopthalmus viridescens louisianensis. As you could see from the BBC news article, there is already an elaborate description of the Kurdish and Armenian case in Turkey towards the end of the article thus signifying a broader and significant conflict involved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not butting in, that's my point. A case in point is this jpg-less "Ovis Armeniana" the middle box of the three animals. This got precisely 3 hits in Google books in the last 100 years (and 2 of those were in German and Czech), and then suddenly this image-less sheep is in 2005 getting mentioned in Le Figaro magazine? The taxonomic significance is as has been said above irrelevant and non-notable outside Turkey, though I have wikilinked at the bottom of the ICZN Code article. (Surprises me however that the Ministries of China, Korea, Japan haven't had a go at some of ICZN's names). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to Turkification (or better target, anyone?). This subject is not important with respect to animal taxonomy, and I don't think that there is enough worthwhile material to justify a freestanding article, but it is an interesting little skirmish in the ongoing political/cultural war in this area, as is evidenced by coverage from multiple reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per above or mention in the article about the animals. This is a one-off news item presumably reported for the oddity of the proposal; we are not an aggregator of news articles per WP:NOTNEWS.  Sandstein   11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hobbes Goodyear and Sandstein. Not worthy of a separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification The BBC is of course a reliable source; however its news are written by human beings and those human beings may ignore (or even distort) facts as any other ignorant or biassed human being. To give an example from the BBC source used in our discussed article "Turkey has tense ties with its eastern neighbour Armenia, which it does not officially recognise." Really? The truth is: "Turkey is one of the first countries that recognised the Republic of Armenia. Kurdish issue? It says so: "Turkey has uneasy relations with neighbouring Armenia and opposes Kurdish separatists in Turkey." Leave aside if Turkey has "easy" or "uneasy" relations with Armenia but what should a country do against "separatism"? Not "oppose" it? (I added this comment to show how "naive" the BBC journalist is.) Let us see something from another BBC source: The "Turkey timeline" (guessably prepared by several journalists, or at least recompiled from previous BBC reporting) says: " 2004 June - State TV broadcasts first Kurdish-language programme.Four Kurdish activists, including former MP Leyla Zana, freed from jail. Nato heads of state gather for summit in Istanbul." (I did not omit anything in both citations.) This latter news item of BBC shows clearly that the Turkish Government is aware of the Kurdish problem and is taking steps to solve it. (I especially chose a BBC news item close to the date of the "non-issue" we are discussing.) The other sources, I understand have followed the said BBC news. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first quote comes from the BBC's 2005 piece on Turkey's renaming exercise. Your second quote "Turkey is one of the first countries that recognised the Republic of Armenia" is (I think) a paraphrasing that comes from their 2012 chronology, describing a 2009 signing event that does not seem to have been ratified. You actually demonstrate the internal consistency of BBC sourcing, and I see no evidence of bias, at least on the part of the BBC. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hobbes: You misunderstood me. I saw no need to show any source on the fact that Turkey is one of the first countries to recognise the Republic of Armenia. I gather you are confused about "recognition" and "diplomatic relations". The first one is a "unilateral" act. You recognise a country or you do not. "Establishing diplomatic relations" is a "bilateral" thing. (It takes two to dance.) No matter all the efforts by Turkey and the international community that development will take more time: We must wait for the "mentality" in Yerevan to change. My point was to show the "ignorance" of the BBC reporter who wrote this (animal name change non-issue) news. OK? --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, Yes, this subject is not important with respect to animal taxonomy and not worthy of a separate article. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. Topic is notable but probably cannot sustain a separate article. TheLongTone (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Just another disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT AfD by a Turkish nationalist with a history of abusing the AfD process. The subject is of course notable, having received widespread coverage in reliable sources.  The article is also too large to me merged.  Athenean (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.