Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. Moving it to a better name is an editorial decision which anyone can do if he sees fit. - Bobet 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of persecuted Turkish writers
Delete as POV fork. Subject already covered under Human rights in Turkey --Kilhan 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is a needed part of the history of journalism. (UNFanatic)


 * Keep it! The broader topic is indeed covered, but such lists are very handy, and concise instruments. Moreover, this lists includes names that were not covered in the article Human rights in Turkey. So it adds extra info. To be kept therefore.  --Lucas Richards 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep, useful list and includes parts that are not covered in Human rights in Turkey. Englishrose 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since this list will not likely become a "handy and concise instrument" as the criteria for inclusion are too vague (define "persecuted" and, for that matter, "writer" since the list claims that it will include "other persons"). If it adds extra info to the article on human rights in Turkey, that strikes me as the best place for it. There or the pages of the writers themselves. To say that it's related to the history of Journalism only broadens the inclusionary criteria further as there were many journalists persecuted under the early Republic (to say nothing of authors, poets, writers etc). Not that it's not a useful topic to have information on, just that it's not a topic to have a separate article on. BigHaz 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: deleting it would reduce the value of Wikipedia. --Rudi Dierick 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's not the strongest of arguments. In what way would deletion of this list reduce the value of Wikipedia?BigHaz 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Several reasons: 1. that lists contains names that are NOT included in other pages (yet), 2. The prupose of lists is providing of a kind of an easy index (sort of table of contents) into other, more detailled information, 3. Conciseness of information. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the lists is still rather short, so there is no 'huge' value in it yet. Of course, that are only my feelings about it. On the whole, I rather favor keeping this list. --Rudi Dierick 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It is strongly suspected that Rudi Dierick is a sockpuppet of Lucas Richards. Checkuser is on--Kilhan 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It has been determined that there is no evidence that Rudi Dierick and Lucas Richards are sockpuppets. Checkuser has the information available.(UNFanatic)
 * Update It has been determined that User:Rudi Dierick and Lucas Richards are the same person via Checkuser. User is requested to indicate which account (s)he wishes to retain here .--Kilhan 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, apparently, some Turkish nationalists are seeking cheap arguments against anybody who is not srtongly in favor of Turkey's record for human rights. About my IP, just known that I'm most of the time working from a very international organisation, with over >25.000 users on it's network. Regards,  --Rudi Dierick 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attacks. I am in strong favour of respect for human rights. I am also against users of Wikipedia violating the Wikipedia policies, regardless of whether I agree with their points of view or not. I originally thought you were a meatpuppet, but for all I see Lucas Richards may be your sockpuppet. The information at Checkuser is not conclusive. --Lambiam Talk  10:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? I'm referring to Turkish nationalists and theur behaviour, and I even did not known about you, but still you fell personally involved. On this page, your name is not mentionned neither. So, how can that be understood? How is it that you feel involved on this page here? Maybe there is a good reason, but I don't see it (yet). --Lucas Richards 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Persecuted" is inherently POV. Orhan Pamuk was charged, but the charges were dismissed; hardly "persecution". The author of the article confuses being charged and being convicted; I corrected one instance but there is more. The list form is not very useful for this. And what are the criteria? Should Nazım Hikmet, Aziz Nesim and Yaşar Kemal be included? From the article I cannot tell. --Lambiam Talk 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are not very clear:
 * 1. the fact that you provide some potential names for possible inclusion, isn't that a good reason for KEEPing it?
 * 2. When checking the definition of persecution, there appear to be some good reasons that suggest Pamuk is indeed persecuted. the def. speaks about 'persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.', so the fact of a condemnation or not is irrelevant here! persecution is about mistreatment. The legal harrassment, the public attacks on his person and reputation are therefore relevant indicators. --Rudi Dierick 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Apparently, the fact of just speaking about 'persecution' is already enough for you to pretend that anybody saying there is persecution is only describing a POV, and that it can just be censored away. So, according to that principle, you would be allowed to remove any article from Wikipedia that speaks abouit persecution. Just to show how ridiculous your reasoning is. --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * About your suggestions:
 * Nazım Hikmet : appears certainly an important Turkish writer, but the article in Wikipedia does not provide any of the reasons for his exile. So, probably there was persecution involved, but that should be clarified.
 * Aziz Nesim : not found in Wikipedia, nor in any of the +/8 975 online dictionaries accessible over www.onelook.com(You cant find him because his name is Aziz Nesin(not with m)if you search for Aziz Nesin in wikipedia you will find him)
 * Yaşar Kemal: appears certainly an important Turkish writer to, but the article in Wikipedia does not provide any indication of persecution. So, this too should be clarified.
 * By the way, why did you suggest these writers? --Rudi Dierick 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of those responses washes with me. Where the first issue is concerned (the idea that more names means that it's more "keepable"), the point is being made that the criteria are sufficiently vague that the list will become unwieldy. Hikmet was (as far as I can remember) in trouble with the early Republic for totally different reasons than Pamuk was controversial in the last few years. A similar comment can be made about the definition of "persecution" - define "persistent", for example. If a "writer" (someone who writes - a "Turkish writer", therefore, can be as broad a category as any ethnic Turk who writes anything) is routinely woken up by his next door neighbour's pets, is that "persistent mistreatment"? I'd imagine not, which means that the definition of "persecution" is similarly vague. BigHaz 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, 'persecution' is not an exact, say mathematical category, but that is NO reason enough why we should not be allowed to use this term. --Lucas Richards 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as a particularly good reason why this term shouldn't be used. As an encyclopedia, we're in the business of presenting facts. Now, while it's a fact that Orhan Pamuk (an author I greatly admire) was charged and later had the charges dropped, there's considerable dispute throughout this discussion as to whether than constitutes "persecution", which is what having him in this article means occurred to him. The same goes for any other writer we have on this list. You might say that X was persecuted, I might say that X was served with a lawsuit and someone else might say that X had it coming all along - who's right? With such a vague word as "persecuted", we can't really tell. However, there's no disputing the fact that Orhan was charged at one point - which is a fact relevant to his particular article. Likewise, there's no disputing that some of these other writers had various things happen to them as well. Do they constitute persecution, though? You say yes, but others say no. Therein lies the problem with this article, it's an attempt to analyse facts in such a way that your take on the matter is upheld while someone else's isn't. BigHaz 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If one would follow your line of reasoning, then it would become impossible to speak about persecutin here, because the persecutor and his sympathisers will then off course object, and that would be it. If you would be really applying the Wikipedia approach, should you not provide a clear definition and an way of evaluation whether that definition applies in this case so that you can avoid the pitfall of giving a veto right to the persecutioners and their sympathisers?  --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have no objectiona against mentionning on the page with the list of persecuted writers that some people object to this or that case being a case of persecution, but only ill-fated prosecution. --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's exactly my point. The only definition of "persecution" that you've put forwards so far is one which is open to interpretation. If there's a definition of the term which doesn't allow for interpretation along the lines we've just been discussing, then it might be worthwhile to use it. As it stands, we're dealing with a vague term which has no right being here in the first place. I'm not "giving a veto right" to anybody - merely pointing out that this article moves from presenting fact to presenting opinion. The object of an encyclopedia is to present fact and allow the reader to form his or her own opinion. As far as mentioning the dispute over the term goes, that's a good concession to have made, but I don't think it's enough - we're still left with this vague term floating around. BigHaz 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Vague and pov. --A.Garnet 09:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wau, and what thn would you say from the contributions from other persons on the Wikipedia pages for those writers that already have an article in Wikipedia? All those articles CONFIRM what I say, being that they are persecuted. For Pamuk, there are 19 references!  All rubissh?  Or is it just that your militancy is so stgrong that you did not check any of these sources, and just voted a POV, instead of looking at the facts?  --Lucas Richards 11:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None of those articles talk of their persecution (an opinion), but rather their prosecution (a fact). You are, and have done before, attempting to give the reader your interpretation of events, (no matter how widely held), but they are still interpretations and not facts. --A.Garnet 11:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, all those occurences of sources on internet that EVERYone can easily find and that speak about 'persecution' of Orhan Pamuk, that's all only my personal implementation? Just have a look at (bold typeset from me):
 * Christopher Orlet, "Turkey wants to join the EU; however, its persecution of Orhan Pamuk demonstrates that the "sick man of Europe" is far from ready to join the civilized world."
 * Julian Sanchez at www.reason.com on December 13, 2005 03:16 PM : "Pamuk is puzzled by the "paradox" of a nation so committed to becoming European simultaneously gripped by the sort of "virulent and intolerant nationalism" that gave rise to his persecution—and Pamuk is, as he notes, scarcely alone among his countrymen on this score.",
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 25, 2006 (UTC).
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 25, 2006 (UTC).


 * Merge any new and valid information into Human rights in Turkey. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. Or maybe even better: 1. move the explanations into Human rights in Turkey, and 2. Keep the list for reference, and as an index to the articles of the writers, ...


 * Delete First of all Hrant Dink is Armenian not Turkish. Also, these people in the list are unpopular among Turkish citizens. We don't want you to use the name of our country with these perfidious people. With respect, Deliogul 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The way you justify your reasons says already quite sometime about the climate in Turkey against those people. The fact they're unpopular is NO reason at all for Wikipedia keeping silent on this! The same goes for your feeling he's "perfidious". These appear good reasons for me that confirm that many Turkish people persecute those writers. --Lucas Richards 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This topic does not have the generality and value to become an article. Furthermore, with the vague usage of the word "persecution" and disputable nature of the subject, keeping it will favor nothing but more discussions and disputes. (btw, I have no relation whatsoever with Deliogul :) DeliDumrul 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just a repetition of arguments that were already answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs)

DELETE appears to be to very popular among the Turkish contributors here. Among more neutral sources, the opinions are more divided, with a majority for KEEPING. And among those, there is at least already one fervently pro-Turkish militant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs)
 * This seems a rather disingenuous series of remarks. To begin with, there are only two Turks who have responded, which is a comparatively small number when taken as a whole in relation to everyone who's responded - I'd also suggest that commenting on the argument, rather than the person making it, is probably for the best. As far as the "neutral" sources go (presumably "neutral" means "people who aren't Turkish"), there are in fact 4 who've suggested it be kept, with 3 suggesting it be deleted. Given the results of the CheckUser quoted here, I think we can be quite safe in saying that one of the 4 "keeps" is in fact an artificial vote, giving us 3-3. That's hardly a majority, and neither is 4-3 a consensus, which is what the object of the exercise is here, since we're not a democracy.BigHaz 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Human rights in Turkey, but don't delete the information. It looks like a fairly well cited list, although the article could use a more neutral tone. Wmahan. 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral to the article, but smack the creator with a wikitrout for soapboxing and not assuming good faith. Aecis AppleknockerFlophouse 08:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear, constructive suggestions are very much OK to me, but here I was left somewhat puzled. Being still relatively new to Wikipedia, I've checked the not assuming good faith page, and it speaks about either NPOV contributions, either personal attacks. So could you please tell me what is a 'wikitrout' and give me the reasons why you suggets this. I find it quite stuning that you start suggesting what should be done with another contributor, without giving a clear argumentation why. Especially since I've tried to be as constructive as possible to anyone suggestion how to improve things.  I only got pissed off in the past by the amount of times when contributions were just deleted, without any argumentation on the discussion page at all, not to say, without any indication that the factual info I contributed was not correct. Looking forward to a constructive solution,  regards,   Lucas
 * Further suggested reading:
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Neutral point of view
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Enjoy. --Lambiam Talk 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but Rename. The subject is worthy of an article, but the title is POV. bogdan 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I proposed List of people charged over their statements in Turkey or something like that. There were non-Turkish people charged for insulting "Turkishness". bogdan 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hundreds upon hundreds of people have faced charges in Turkey over things they said. Just the other day someone was convicted to a jail sentence for jocularly making the statement "I have a bomb on me" while on a ferry. Someone else was so upset that he called a customs official an idiot, something that is frowned upon in Turkey and not considered a liberty allowed by the constitutional freedom of expression. There would just be no end to it. I guess the same could be said for most other countries, including the United States. If we are to have a list, we need rather precise criteria for what goes on it, and these criteria should also be such that the list is not endless. --Lambiam Talk 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be for political statements only. That should include Kurdish-related problems, insulting of "Turkishness" etc. bogdan 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete complete POV.  Kerten k e le b e k        Ⓣ 10:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems with neutrality are not a reason to delete. - FrancisTyers · 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See this policy. Problems with neutrality alone are not, but forking is. BigHaz 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is not the case in here: A list with clear objective criteria is not content forking. bogdan 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A list with clear objective criteria is not content forking, true. However, I'm not convinced that this is such a list. There is no agreement (either in this discussion or in the article) about what "persecution" is apart from the general comment that it's something which is believed to have happened to the people on that list. Likewise, there is no indication anywhere of exactly what constitutes a "writer" ("fiction writers" and "journalists" are explicitly included, as are "officials" which is another vague term which can be stretched all over the place). Thus, we have a list of a broad collection of people to whom something hard to define has happened. I'll admit that the broad collection of people who were originally eligible for inclusion here has been narrowed a fair bit, but we've still got politicians, a judge, a number of journalists, an "editor", a publisher, an author or two, at least one publisher, a human rights activist and at least one person with no employment listed - so I'd have difficulty believing that there are hard-and-fast criteria for inclusion other than the fact that they've been a cause celebre somewhere around the world. Regarding the "persecution" side, we range in seriousness from a murder through to a complaint that someone's freedom of expression is being curtailed. So as far as exactly what happens to constitute "persecution", we're similarly vague. In other words, this is an article which exists purely to push a certain POV in a forked manner. BigHaz 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename per bogdan. The article needs a cleanup, but it is an interesting topic. Perhaps rename something like List of notable people charged under article 301. - FrancisTyers · 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Francis's approach. List of people charged under Article 301 would be factual and precise without the pov issues. But i see no reason why that cannot be placed in Article 301 rather than a separate article. --A.Garnet 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But there's also "Law 5816", which sends you to prison if you insult Ataturk:
 * Former parliamentary deputy Hasan Mezarcı was serving an 18-month sentence imposed in 1996 under Law 5816 for insulting Mustafa Kemal Atatürk -- amnestyusa.org
 * And also some Kurdish writers/journalists, charged under various other laws. bogdan 12:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We could merge in the ones charged under '301 into Article 301, and find a better name for the others. Is there a "catchall" term for these kind of laws? - FrancisTyers · 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename per bogdan & Francis. The title may be POV, but I think the article itself should stay. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment for those talking about renaming the article to something to do with Article 301 - there is no indication that all of these people in the list were in fact charged under it, or in some cases that they were charged at all. BigHaz 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-verifiable information should be removed. - FrancisTyers · 11:59, 31 July 2006 (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.