Talk:Ahval

Revert

The edit is reverted for not adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Firstly, don't delete sources per WP:V. Secondly, don't hijack references by leaving the reference source, but changing the text. Thirdly, don't ad unrelated stuff (like about Yavuz Baydar) on this page per WP:Out of scope. For example, the sentence "Baydar left Turkey following the 2016 coup attempt". This might be true but is not information about Ahval and should be placed on the article of Yavuz Baydar himself. Finally, as a sign of good faith, I kept new information such as the site being blocked by the Government in Turkey + amount of daily visitor mentioned by the editor. (Plus, in relation to English grammar, the edit has many incomprehensible and incoherent sentences.) Reach consensus instead of edit warring. Randam (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are biased and your history of editing shows that you are biased in favour of the Turkish government, and your edits here, accusing the website of being Gulenist and only providing biased pro-Erdogan media sources which are not WP:RS shows that you are not neutral on this subject. The information about Baydar is in the scope of the article, especially since you keep accusing the site of having terrorist links, which is libelous and totally lacks evidence. You are not editing this page in good faith, and if other editors look at your history of edits, they will see you are a pro-Turkish government account trying to smear opponents of the politicians you like. --EthicalPenguin2 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't continue with the ad hominem attacks. If my edits are wrong, tell me what is wrong on the talk page instead of smearing me. WP:RS is not about biased media. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Randam (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Saying that you clearly do not have a WP:NPoV is not ad hominem, it's a description of your behaviour and your political point of view, which anybody can see by looking at your history of editing which supports the Turkish government. You create numerous articles for AKP politicians, many of which have been deleted because they aren't notable, and you keep on removing WP:RS from this article, citations like al-Monitor, which clearly state that Baydar and Ahval do not have any links to the coup, in favour of putting back citations from biased Turkish state media sources. You even linked to a source about how Turkey abuses interpol red notices in order to suggest that it was significant that Turkey issued a red notice against Baydar. How much more biased on this subject could you possibly be? Administrators should give you a complete subject ban on editing this article and on any page for opposition Turkish media. Now please stop edit warring on this article. --EthicalPenguin2 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What has the coup has to do with Ahval or Baydar? Which edit states that Baydar was involved in the coup? Baydar is accused of having links to Gulenists. Which is something else. Unless you're saying that all Gulenists were part of the coup, which makes no sense. Also how do you explain yourself by deleting the Al Araby source that states "Ahval is accused of links to Gulen". Randam (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Tanir accusations

I rewrote the section on Tanir being accused of PKK/Gulenist sympathies, to remove the implication the red notice was issued, and to include his rebuttal. But, considering all of this happened before Ahval even existed, and was focused around his work for Cumhuriyet, I'm not sure it's in scope. Additionally, looking into the use of red notices it seems that the Turkish government has a record of abusing this mechanism, being mentioned 47 times in this 53 page report on the issue. I am not sure we should be reinforcing their actions by echoing the accusations here, it's not even clear if the red notice was issued.Battleofalma (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits by EthicalPenguin2

EthicalPenguin2. Why are you deleting the Al Araby source that states "Ahval is accused of Gülen links"? Secondly, why are you deleting sources you claim are tabloid sources? Even if they where tabloid sources, it is still allowed according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Heck, even biased sources are allowed on Wiki. It seems you are confusing WP:RS with sources "you don't find reliable". Thirdly, you are also deleting new and first time additions without explanation. Randam (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Randam: To quote WP:PUS, "In general, tabloid newspapers... should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims." If a tabloid source is advancing a conspiracy theory (and conspiracy theories about Gülen/PKK/etc are very popular in Turkey), it should not be used unless a more serious source endorses it. (For example, a serious foreign newspaper or news magazine.) SJK (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. WP:PUS is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as stated in the header. But yes, extra caution is always a good thing, that is why additional sources were implemented. That aside, in this context, deleting 'tabloid' sources makes no sense. "The accusations" are real. Which is how it is reported and worth mentioning. I'm not commenting about the accusations being true, that's something different. Whether the accusations are true, can be debatable, but that is not our job. Randam (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)