Talk:List of prosecuted writers in Turkey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiatec claim of factual errors or doubts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Be it henceforth resolved that... 

message: Any reason why this article is still disputed? If there isn't, the tag should probably be removed. Khoikhoi 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tags. Khoikhoi 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of prosecuted Turkish writers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005040501/http://web.amnesty.org/wire/May2006/Turkey to http://web.amnesty.org/wire/May2006/Turkey
*Added  tag to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR441381996
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311034921/http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=5&ArsivAnaID=8272&SayfaNo=1 to http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=5&ArsivAnaID=8272&SayfaNo=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005040501/http://web.amnesty.org/wire/May2006/Turkey to http://web.amnesty.org/wire/May2006/Turkey
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311043401/http://www.bianet.org/2006/07/01_eng/news81398.htm to http://www.bianet.org/2006/07/01_eng/news81398.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707170543/http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news88061.htm to http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news88061.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If no one objects I would adapt the list here with only book authors and add the journalists present here but not in the List of arrested journalists in Turkey there. Maybe also an other lemma would be good. Like list of prosecuted turkish book authors?
Best, 
--Lean Anael (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some names figure also in the list of arrested journalists in Turkey