Talk:List of prosecuted Turkish writers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I've added the npov tag to the article. There are several neutrality problems. The first was in a section of the original article "These prosecutions are (...) so blatantly in contradiction with universal human rights..." I've rewritten this to a more objective wording, which still needs a lot of improving and fine-tuning. The second problem is with the title. The article itself speaks of "prosecuted" writers (writers who are or have been confronted with "civil or criminal court action"), while the title speaks of "persecuted" writers (those who are or have been "oppressed or harassed with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs"). Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear, many thanks for your good efforts in trying to improve the consistency and the wording of this article. The title indeed is to be 'List of persecuted Turkish writers'. prosecution is only the official legal procedure, whereas persecution is the more general term which was meant here. --Lucas Richards 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiatec claim of factual errors or doubts

Given the total absence of any explanation on which information would be factually wrong, this flag is used against the Wikipedia rules. the sale goes for the neutrality flag. Also the lach of references is not substantiated neither. So should we not delete all those flags? Are the persons posting those flags not abusing them to hide their POV and their partisan intentions, being censorship! --Lucas Richards 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At the time I reinstated the "unreferenced" flag, there were references related to one or two of the writers listed (there were 5 or 6 writers listed) as well as Rehn's statement. Given that there were claims being made about the non-referenced writers, I believe that I was justified in saying that sources were not being cited. BigHaz 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but that was then! Your sugegstion that references were needed did not fell into deaf ears. Since then, I've added many references, mostly from international, well-known human rights organisations. I find it quite uncooperative, and disrespectfull that these sources are deleted without any word of explanation about each single deldete you applied! --Lucas Richards 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as can be seen by an investigation of timestamps on my comments and also on my edits, this is an attempt to subtly alter the history of the article. My checking and deletion of some sources took place significantly after my initial discovery of a collection of unsourced claims, while an implication is being made above that the two events took place at best concurrently and at worst in the opposite order. As the edit history of the main article shows, I added the "unreferenced" flag to signal that claims were being made without sources. I then checked the sources which were provided and (as explained below) discovered that a handful didn't load and one did not contain the information the article claimed it did. At that point, I removed (and documented the removal of) the sources in question. BigHaz 09:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As an addition, I've now checked each one of the references provided and removed those which either don't load or don't contain the information claimed. There are still either 10 or 11 - depending on how you look at it - claims which are not referenced. BigHaz 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, is this not your POV that those references are not good enough! Does Wikipedia not prescribe that FIRST different assessments of accuracy and quality of information is discussed, and then only, after a consensus emerges, those specific bits of irrelevant, inaccurate ... info is removed. You appear to disrespect Wikipedia rules in that you decides single-handedly and without any discussion here what's to be deleted. Worse, your unilateral removal is NOT explained in not one single case where you removed references! is this correct, or should this way of doing be improved? Or was I wrong in assuming that Wikipedia explicitely prescribes prior discussion based on precise, factual information and explanations on why someone objects to info X, Y and/or Z, before deleting information? --Lucas Richards 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Lucas. I never said that those references "weren't good enough". What I said was that a number of them don't load and one of them (Orhan Pamuk's official site) doesn't contain the information the article claimed it did. There was an explanation provided in my edit summary, which reads (quoting from here) "rm inaccessible links (as well as Pamuk's official site, which doesn't in fact contain the info claimed)". At no point in that edit summary do I make any claims other than those which can be backed up by fact - namely that a series of those links didn't work and that one did not have the relevant information. I'd appreciate an apology from you for impugning my motives here - and I'd even accept it from your other account - but I doubt I'd receive one. Just remember two things in future - firstly the assumption of good faith and secondly the avoidance of personal attacks. BigHaz 09:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to Now?

Since there was no consensus in the AfD, we're still left with an article in need of something of a rewrite. Below are the suggestions that I have, but others are welcome to add theirs (constructively) or point out flaws in my own:

• "List of People Charged Under Article 301"

A great many of these people on the list were charged under that article, so a brief spiel on what Article 301 is all about followed by a collection of their names would seem appropriate. Not everyone in this current incarnation of the article will make it through, though, unless we can dig up sources proving otherwise.

• "Article 301"

As an alternative, perhaps an article should be written here about Article 301. What it says, what it means, how it's been used and so on. Certain examples from the existing list can then be used to show that it's used against politicians, journalists, novelists, what-have-you.

Those are the two suggestions I have for what to do when we keep an article here. I have a slight preference for the second option, but I'll be guided by any other suggestions.

There's also the option of merging some or all of this content elsewhere:

• Merge to the pages of the people concerned

A number of the people in this list have their own articles already, so it would be a simple matter to merge any new content from here to there. In situations where an article doesn't exist, it could serve as the beginning of one.

• Merge to "Human rights in Turkey" or a similar article

There is already an article with that title, so it would be a very quick job to merge anything not already represented there with that particular article, as it's already dealing with all human rights issues there (or meant to, at any rate).

Of these, I have no real preference.

Feel free to chime in with your own suggestions here and with any luck we'll be able to improve this article out of sight. BigHaz 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Having poked around in the depths of the Wikipedia, I've found an article which already exists on Article 301, so the above idea of creating an article on the article is in fact a suggestion to merge the content there. I'd suggest, though, that such a merge would need to be restricted to the notable (i.e. those who already have articles here and aren't already listed there). Given that the article already exists, I can't see the need for a list of those charged under it.
Unless any other user suggests a good reason not to do so by the 10th of this month, I'll make a judgement call and merge the content as appropriate before making a further judgement call on what to do with this article itself. BigHaz 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to merging the people charged into Article 301, though like you say it should be restricted to the most notable cases. --A.Garnet 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree in principle, as I stated within the AfD. Cases should be included on the basis of verifiability rather than "has already got a Wikipedia stub". What would you suggest to do with the people "persecuted" under the other law, the one about insulting Ataturk or something? Perhaps we should make an article for this law and put them in there? - FrancisTyers · 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the list as it currently stands, there's only one person on it who appears to have been charged under the Ataturk-insults law, and he doesn't have an article at the moment to start with. BigHaz 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a merge with Article 301. In Turkey public opposition centres upon Article 301, as in a currently ongoing action of intellectuals signing a declaration in which they publicly declare themselves as being equally guilty as Hrant Dink, the editor of the Armenian newspaper Agos and one of the few notable people actually convicted under Article 301, a conviction that has been upheld in appeal.

Some journalists and others have been charged (or also charged) under Article 288 (aiming to prejudice a court case) for criticizing Article 301 prosecutions. Article 288 carries a potentially substantially higher penalty. I support including such cases as well – not arbitrary 288 cases but those specifically relating to criticism of Article 301 cases.

As to insulting Ataturk, that is truly a different matter that has no similar political significance. The law (and criticism applying to it) are mentioned under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Legacy. If specific cases are to be mentioned there, we must make sure that they are notable, and not about some drunken person who mistook a statue of Ataturk for a public toilet.

More later. --Lambiam^Talk 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The only suggestion I have would be to consider setting up a sub-category under Category:Political repressions by country, and go from there. Category:Censorship by country doesn't seem quite as applicable. I haven't seen any particular agreement on a naming convention for this type of page. — RJH (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means in terms of the question what to do with the present article. I see that we currently have an article Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark and an article Freedom of speech in the United States, and so it would not be unreasonable to have an article "Freedom of speech in Turkey". However, the other two articles are about what the laws say, and not about any specific cases, and so have a very different character than what we have here. --Lambiam^Talk 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though most of the discussion's out of the way (although I'll leave it to run until the 10th just in case, since I said as much at the outset). The current consensus seems to be to move those charged under 301 and who already have articles into the relevant section in the article on Article 301 and merge any notable Ataturk-insulters to that particular article. Ultimately, the category suggestion above may prove handy, but in terms of at least a short-term solution that looks like what's going ahead. BigHaz 09:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be it henceforth resolved that...

Per the above discussion, all people who have articles already and have been charged under Article 301 are going to be written up there (assuming they're not already). If there are any people listed here with articles who have been charged under the Ataturk-insulting law, they'll get written up there. BigHaz 08:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, I've listed this article at AfD again (after totally botching the template, thankfully someone else saved the day), so those of you with the page on your watchlists might want to contribute there. BigHaz 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)