Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

I'm getting the impression that the writers of this article hadn't heard of Erdogan before the Istanbul protests... He is a very complex figure who needs to be seen in the context of modern Turkish history. I love the novels of Orhan Pamuk (particularly 'Snow') so I've always had a little thing for Turkey, such a fascinating country. MarcusCicero (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please add stuff. I knew about him before but didn't really care until he started saying stupid things. He seems to have got on top of Turkey's silly inflation (4000 Lire to the pound I seem to recall) and he's negotiated a peace deal with the Kurdish rebels. Sophie  Wilder  12:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think also I was wary of starting off at the wrong end and ending up with a rather bland, even-handed piece with no bite. Having moaned about the Michael Jackson article starting that way i wasn't going to make the same mistake. So I made a different one. Oh well, it's a wiki. Sophie  Wilder  12:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is a bit too positive
Erdogan is an obvious authoritarian who curtails press freedom, freedom of assembly and while he's nicer to the Kurds than other Turkish leaders, he still oppresses with them. While he hasn't banned opposing political parties, his opposition is incredibly weak(Due to his stranglehold on Turkish media), much like Putin. He has also been accused of forcing Islam into a very secular Turkey's politics.

Also, what is happening in Turkey is the opposite of Egypt, we have a an authoritarian taking power for themselves away from the military where in Egypt the opposite happened.

End to the Kurdish conflict?
Today's news belie this statement, don't y'all think? Both Kruds and the Turkish government are at it again. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

AKP isn't the first Islamist party to hold power in Turkey. The Democrat Party between 1950-60 and Welfare Party from 1996-7 held power in Islamist governments - AKP simply is the first Islamist party never to be overthrown by a military junta.

Article is extremely problematic, likely needs immediate revisions or deletion if not fixed
So, I will make it clear very quickly that I'm not DEFENDING Erdoğan, as I have absolutely zero reason to, nor do I like him or his political positions, and I agree with a lot of things this article says, but this article is problematic for two very clear reasons.

1: It makes a lot of extremely bold accusations without sourcing them.

2: It does not hold much substance beyond "lul erdoğan is a dictator".

I'll go into both in detail. Firstly, the bold and unsourced allegations, and you don't even have to dig deep to find multiple. Here are all of them in literally the opening portion of the article.

Erdoğan himself is an authoritarian figure whose violent suppression of a protest in Istanbul caused a massive counterreaction lasting several weeks.

This is true, and verifiable. Yet, for some particular reason, the authors did not go to the trouble to link their sources for this claim, if they even had any.

He has an autocratic style and thinks his majoritarian credentials gives him carte blanche to treat any who opposes him as scum, and made himself the most powerful Turkish leader since Atatürk.

This an objectively defamatory claim without sources. The fact that the authors decided to say this without any sources verifying this is completely absurd, and if they cannot find valid sources for this, I recommend completely rewording or deleting this portion of the article. Especially make sure to link WHICH opposition he "treats like scum" and what "treats like scum" even means.

He greatly reduced the power of the military with his frequent purges (i.e. weakening the only thing that can challenge his authority), and is in the process of introducing a new, authoritarian constitution (the current one was written by the generals).

This is considered defamation under article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, and I can honestly see Rationalwiki getting into extremely hot water with Turkey's internet moderation services if this is not immediately amended or sourced. I;E, list any information linking ANY specific generals to the new constitution written, (generals of what?)

Erdoğan currently controls the largest military in Europe (if you consider Turkey to be European) and is the most powerful player in the Middle East outside of the Gulf States. And that worries nearly everyone.

Two big issues here. For one, who is "nearly everyone" in this particular case? Two, the claim that he controls "the largest military in Europe" is verifiably false. While it is true that the Turkish military by sheer numbers is the biggest military NATO power in Europe, Russia and Ukraine are notably larger. A quick google search found these numbers for me.

As you can see, in just the FIRST portion of the article, we have major issues with unsourced and flat out incorrect statements, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the Military subsection of the article, we run into problems in the first sentence.

Despite his autocratic style, and his Islamist influences (which are very mild compared to most Middle Eastern forms of Islamism), Erdoğan has occasionally been a democratizing force for Turkey. Thanks to his reforms, the chances of a military coup occurring were thought to be slim to none.

Three issues. For one, which sources claim these? Surely making an objective statement such as "Erdoğan has occasionally been a democratizing force for Turkey" requires at least a single source, but yet, we still have none. Two, this repeats the same statements made in the first portion of the article (about Erdoğan being an autocrat) without providing any sources, again. And lastly, this article has again mentioned his party's supposed islamism, despite linking no sources making this claim as well.

But this isn't such an obviously good thing as it might first appear. To describe the role of the military in Turkish politics as "complex" is a massive understatement. Unlike other countries the Turkish military tends to act as a stabilizing force. It sees itself as the guardian of "Kemalism," the principles of modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which include secularism and republicanism. In 1980 the military staged a coup after national politics was paralyzed by waves of political violence that killed thousands and brought the economy near total collapse. The military were hardly Boy Scouts – imprisoning and torturing many thousands in the aftermath of the coup – but they stabilized the economy and within three years restored at least a nominal democracy.

While these claims are not incorrect, they once again list no sources for claims of the Turkish military torturing people, doesn't seem to regard the coup in 1980 with much important beyond a footnote, and generally makes unsourced, somewhat correct statements without any elaboration. Notice a pattern?

Since then, the fiercely secularist military have intervened twice (in 1997 and 2007) to nudge out or forestall the election of Islamist presidents. These latter episodes cast Erdoğan's efforts to limit the military in an interesting light. [2]

Finally! A sourced claim! For only one of the claims this paragraph makes, of course. For some reason there are no links to what exactly occurred in these coups during 1997 or 2007, and once again, they seem to be relegated to nothing more than an unsourced footnote. Next section.

I find the Mass protests in 2013 section most offensive in the context of this page.

In 2013, Erdoğan's government authorised the building of a supermarket in a small park in İstanbul, a large city with few parks. The sparked a protest by locals who wanted to keep hold of their local bit of greenery (and who already had enough supermarkets). Riot police moved in on a peaceful sit-in, provoking national sympathy for the protestors. Demonstrations erupted across Turkey against Islamism and authoritarianism. Erdoğan's inflammatory remarks (routinely calling people "looters" and, of course, "terrorists") only served to fuel the fire.

I find this offensive for multiple reasons. For one, not only are sources on the Gezi park protests ABUNDANT and nowhere near difficult to find, this section doesn't even name them, nor cite a single source or go into detail on what might be the single biggest civil uprising of his presidency beyond a couple sentences.

At this point, I could seriously go on for hours, but I won't, because I don't want to clog this page up too much beyond what I've written already. I will assume that these issues are simply mistakes or products of pure laziness instead of malice, and I highly suggest massive changes to be made at some point. Thank you. Ozzyboo (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The penal code is cited, but could you list an example of government acting on "denigration"? It seems to list exceptions for "critique" which I assume means including sourced statements would help cross the line into "critique" territory, but sometimes, that boundary is blurry and authoritarian regimes are not usually the type that would carefully tread that line. 23:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the line from denigration and criticism is blurry at best and is likely a mistranslation. The thing about Article 301 is that exceptions barely apply in Turkey since Erdoğan's regime doesn't particularly care what things people say to him as long as it makes him sad or angry. However, I do think that having bold claims cited may make it look more like legitimate criticism since RationalWiki is both not operating out of Turkey and is also a Wiki page. (Something Turkey has a lot of history with.) Plus, beyond that, I think it sets a bad precedent to make bold claims without citations regardless. Ozzyboo (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)