These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| "As a NATO member and a regional power, Turkey is too important to cut adrift. It will play a vital role in any peace in Syria… Turkey has also been a conduit for refugees into the EU as well as vital in controlling their inflow. The refugee situation is in flux: the EU will need to keep talking to Turkey about how to cope with the resulting instability." 
 
 
 
 These sentences were published in this week's Economist magazine. For quite some time now, we have not come across sentences mentioning the "importance of Turkey" in the main outlets of mainstream Western media, the Economist foremost among them. To what do we owe this pleasure? 
 
 
 
 As a writer living in Turkey and observing the increasing amount of anti-Turkey news and commentaries in Western media, I know that these sentences are not being written to refer to Turkey's value but instead as a result of an attempt to interfere in Turkey's politics. The Economist is fighting, along with many other Western media organs, for the "no" campaign in the referendum on constitutional changes that will occur on April 16 in Turkey. It has clearly picked a side, supporting the "no" campaign, and even more, actively campaigning for the "no" result. 
 
 
 
 The fact that there are political, ideological, and cultural motivations for this biased approach is known to all. This biased approach, which finds its voice in anti-Erdoğanism, is unfortunately far from the correct understanding of the main dynamics of Turkey's political reality. Let me try to explain why. Let us first look at why the Economist magazine says "no" should win in the April 16 referendum. 
 
 
 
 The magazine's cover page explains everything, in truth. On the cover, there is a photo of an angry President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with his right hand raised in a fist and his left hand holding a microphone. Two-thirds of the photo is red, to symbolize Turkey. "Dark clouds" are placed at the top of the cover and the Turkish flag is mostly hidden behind these clouds. The cover's title is, "Turkey is sliding into dictatorship." 
 
 
 
 What type of dictatorship is the Economist talking about? Had they not declared Erdoğan a dictator first in May 2013? As it analyzed Turkey's politics, did it not do so through Erdoğan's supposed dictatorship as its main reference? What's new now? 
 
 
 
 According to the Economist, if a "yes" result comes out of the April 16 referendum, Turkey will be led by an "elected dictator." This idea of "elected" and "dictator"— it sounds interesting, doesn't it? 
 
 
 
 In its article, the Economist presents Turkey's past 15 years in a truly warped fashion. It says that Erdoğan did do some good things after coming to power in 2003, that he lowered inflation, sped up economic growth, tightened the area of military tutelage and the deep state, and that he expanded areas of freedom. However, according to the Economist, Erdoğan was only able to do these "good things" in the economy and politics by following the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union respectively. What about today? 
 
 
 
 The Economist says that Turkey is involved in campaigns against the regime as well as "jihadists" and "Kurdish fighters" in the shadow of the Syrian civil war, the powers in the army, bureaucracy, and judiciary, connected to the American-based cult leader Fetullah Gülen, attempted a coup last summer, the economy has slowed and that tourism has collapsed. 
 
 
 
 After drawing such a problematic picture of Turkey, it lays the blame for all this at Erdoğan's feet. And then it follows up by stating that in order not to strengthen Erdoğan, "no" votes need to be cast in the referendum. 
 
 
 
 However, the dynamics of Turkey's politics are functioning quite healthily and Turkey is building a new administrative system within the legal bounds and appropriate to democratic practices. A "yes" vote may come out on April 16, or a "no." But this decision will be made by the Turkish public. It is Parliament that brought Turkey to this process. There is a constitutional change package in front of us, supported not only by the ruling party Justice and Development Party (AK Party) but the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) as well. 
 
 
 
 The main issue within this constitutional change is to prohibit the constitutional crises that have occurred since the transition to a multi-party state in the 1950s. It is to close off Turkey's politics to manipulation and intervention by tutelary actors. Turkish politics' main actors, from former presidents Turgut Özal to Süleyman Demirel, have stated since the 1970s that Turkey needs a new administrative system and that it should be a presidential system. 
 
 
 
 In the end, we are talking about an 18-article change. With these changes, political stability and strong leadership will be institutionalized and the executive branch will be made more effective. The legislative branch will be taken away from the executive branch and will focus more on its actions within legislation and its role as a check on the executive. The judiciary will democratize, and military jurisdiction will vanish. Along with all of these, due to the nature of the new administrative system, reconciliation will become an inseparable part of the legislative and executive processes. 
 
 
 
 I can understand that these are all things that those who finance media organs such as the Economist do not want happening. But it is the right of Turkey's public to want these for itself. No one can prevent this. I think the Economist magazine should stop dealing with Turkey and start talking about the disappearance of that dream-like "liberal Europe" it keeps defending when it can. And, it should not forget to confess the mistakes that media organs like itself made in the collapse of liberal Europe. ||||| People gather on Friday prior to the April 16 constitutional referendum, which proposes changing the constitution to concentrate power in the hands of the president. (Murat Kula/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images) 
 
 By Simon P. Watmough and Ahmet Erdi Öztürk 
 
 Turkey is approaching a critical juncture in its long-term political development. Irrespective of the outcome, the country's April 16 referendum, which proposes changing the constitution to concentrate power in the hands of the president, heralds a new political era. 
 
 Many signs seem to point to a narrow victory for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in his attempt to establish an executive presidency "a la Turca," but the result is not a foregone conclusion. 
 
 Should Erdoğan's suggested reforms be rejected, Turkey's near future would be defined by its president's next move. Without a formal shift in constitutional structure, Erdoğan could resort to nefarious means to consolidate his grip on power. Alternatively, given his long-standing ambition to establish what we call a "constitutional Erdoğanistan," he might simply pause briefly before attempting a second bite at the cherry. 
 
 Turkey on the brink 
 
 Turkey has a strong parliamentary system with a prime minister as its head. The referendum proposes to abolish the role of prime minister and replace it with an executive presidency. A major shift like this is something that has only happened a handful of times since the republic was founded in 1923 according to renowned historian of Turkey, Erik J. Zürcher. 
 
 The country's political system has already undergone significant economic, social, and political changes since the Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish acronym AKP) came to power in 2002. The AKP was an eager champion of legal reforms relating to Turkey's EU candidacy and accession starting in 2004. And in September 2010, it successfully shepherded changes aimed at bringing the constitution into compliance with EU standards. 
 
 Still, were the Turkish people to vote "yes" on April 16, the changes would be fundamental and irreversible. The referendum proposes 18 amendments that will abolish nearly 70 years of multiparty parliamentary government, moving Turkey away from the core norms of a pluralist, parliamentary state of law by reducing the separation of powers and the checks and balances system, among other changes. 
 
 Erdoğan's aim is to transform the country into a majoritarian authoritarian system centered on one man. What Turks are risking is nothing less than "democide" – the scholarly term for voting to abolish democracy itself. 
 
 A critical juncture 
 
 Since the birth of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Turkey's parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, has been the place where national sovereignty resides. 
 
 In the early republican period, it was dominated by the party of modern Turkey's revered founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). Since the transition from single-party rule to a multiparty democracy in 1946, the parliament has been the crucial institution in the political life of the country. 
 
 Elected lawmakers have long shared power with strong guardians of institutions such as the military, the judiciary and Turkey's government bureaucracy – all Kemalist-dominated – in a kind of hybrid political system not unlike that of contemporary Iran, Thailand, Pakistan and Myanmar. 
 
 The parliament has also served as the site where governments have been formed, thrown out of office and restricted. 
 
 As the scholar of Turkish constitutional development Ergün Özbudun notes, "even at the height of Atatürk's prestige, the Assembly rejected a proposal to give the President of the Republic the power to dissolve the Assembly." 
 
 Under Erdoğan, the AKP has worked through the parliament to legitimize its rule. By 2010, it had vanquished the last Kemalist bastions within the state thanks to successive landslide electoral victories and a now-defunct strategic alliance with the Gülenists (members of a Muslim-organized educational community who follow the U.S.-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen). 
 
 Since then, Turkey has been a weak electoral democracy, with the power of the National Assembly slowly eroding. A "yes" victory in the April 16 referendum could permanently diminish the authority of this venerable institution. 
 
 An unbalanced campaign 
 
 The authoritarian style Erdoğan has in mind for the future was already on display during the referendum campaign itself. 
 
 Erdoğan's tone has been aggressively nationalistic and populist. He compared European countries' criticism of the campaign with the attempts of the Allies to dismember Turkey at the end of the first world war, for instance. And he promised to reinstate the death penalty after the referendum. 
 
 In the first ten days of March, the government allocated television airtime to various parties to promote their positions on the referendum. The president saw 53.5 hours in newscasts, and the governing AKP was granted 83. 
 
 Meanwhile, the Republican People's Party ("Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi"), the main opposition, which draws its support primarily from Turkey's secular and Alevi minorities, was allocated 17 hours, while the less influential Nationalist Movement Party ("Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi") enjoyed just 14.5 hours. The Peoples' Democratic Party, ("Halkların Demokratik Partisi"), a pro-minority party that is advocating a "no" vote, saw only 33 minutes of news coverage. 
 
 A March 2017 report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe confirms that state officials have leaned heavily on the scales to support the "yes" campaign. By occupying the bully pulpit of the presidency, with all the resources of the government along with privileged access to media at its disposal, the "yes" group has had an overwhelming campaign advantage. 
 
 A 'yes' vote means more Erdoğan 
 
 If Erdoğan prevails in the April 16 referendum, the plan is to hold presidential and general elections together in 2019. Were he to win these, Erdoğan would be eligible to serve two additional five-year terms, allowing him to stay in office until 2029. His previous terms in office (2003-2014) would not count toward the two-term limit. 
 
 As president, by current law, Erdoğan had to resign from his party and officially assume a politically neutral stance. 
 
 But under the new rules, he could rejoin the AKP, which, according to opposition parties, will abolish any chance of impartiality. The proposed amendments also make it harder to remove the president from office. 
 
 The proposed changes will grant the president wide-ranging powers to issue binding decrees with the force of law. And even though these will be subject to judicial review, the president himself will appoint most of the judiciary. 
 
 With his new presidential powers, Erdoğan would also be enabled to indefinitely extend the current state of emergency that was put in to effect following the failed July 2016 coup against him. 
 
 A 'no' vote 
 
 Despite the uneven playing field, surveys show that the referendum race is tight, and Erdoğan could be defeated. 
 
 Currently, both the opposition Republican People's Party and pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party are advocating a "no" vote in the referendum. DİSK, a left-wing trade union body, and numerous other NGOs and civil society groups have also come out against the proposed changes. 
 
 A narrow loss on April 16 would be a blow to Erdoğan, but it is unlikely to kill his ambition. He is expected to simply regroup and try again, including by renewing the state of emergency that gives him wide-ranging authority to continue bypassing parliament. Such a move would allow for continued purges of those deemed in opposition to the government, including Kurdish groups and Gülenists. 
 
 This is Erdoğan's modus operandi: to foment and instrumentalize social crises to centralize power. After the 2013 Gezi park protests against urban development in Istanbul developed into a wider movement against the regime, for example, the government severely clamped down on individual rights, including media freedom. Erdoğan claimed that Gezi protesters and their supporters were a threat to the national will. 
 
 The president used a similar argument to banish the Gülen movement, deemed a terrorist organization since May 2016. 
 
 Thus, rather than stabilize the situation, a "no" vote is likely to induce further volatility in Turkey. Erdoğan can be expected to quickly introduce a new package of "constitutional reforms" – a move that would require either a national crisis or a new "enemy of the Turkish people" as a pretext. 
 
 Rhetorical attacks on Europe are likely to intensify. Earlier this year, charges of Nazism leveled against Germany, and criticism of interference in campaign rallies by Austria and the Netherlands, were widely cheered in Turkey, giving Erdoğan every incentive to double down on the EU animosity if he loses his referendum. 
 
 In a sense, no matter who prevails on April 16, Erdoğan may remain undefeated. ||||| Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Two days before a referendum on extending the powers of Turkey's president, the leader of the main opposition party accuses President Erdogan of running scared from a public debate and calls on voters to back the 'No' campaign. Video provided by AFP Newslook 
 
 People walk in front of a stretch limousine with pictures of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reading, 'Always nation, of course Yes', in Ankara, Turkey, on April 11, 2017, ahead of Sunday's constitutional referendum. (Photo: Tumay Berkin, European Pressphoto Agency) 
 
 ISTANBUL — Sunday's constitutional referendum on granting broad new powers to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has deeply divided Elif Koc's family, like many other Turks. The 18-year-old manicurist said her uncle opposes giving Erdogan so much authority, but she's voting for the change. 
 
 "That can lead us to be a better country,” said first-time voter Koc. 
 
 Whether a powerful presidency will lead to a better country is in sharp dispute. Supporters of the referendum say changing Erdogan's job from a largely ceremonial post to a position more akin to the U.S. presidency will improve the economy and provide Turkey a strong leader at a time of enormous challenges. A civil war in neighboring Syria has sent 3.5 million refugees into Turkey, terrorist attacks are on the rise, and conflict is growing with minority Kurds seeking autonomy. 
 
 “The economy will be stronger, growth will accelerate, there will be new jobs, we will cut the red tape, and the new system will eradicate terrorism,” Prime Minister Banali Yildirim, who would lose his job if the referendum succeeds, told a February rally in the capital, Ankara. 
 
 Those opposed to the change fear Erdogan would undermine Turkey's democracy and secular traditions and institute a religious authoritarianism regime in this mostly Muslim nation. They point to the government crackdown following an attempted military coup last year. 
 
 “It’s paving the way for a dictatorship,” said Ismail Gundogdu, 74, a retired banker. “It’s anti-democratic.” 
 
 Polls show a close contest with the "yes" campaign slightly ahead. 
 
 The outcome is not only vital to Turkey's future, but it also will have major ripple effects in Europe, the Middle East and dealings with the United States and NATO. The U.S. military has a strategic air base in Turkey that is used for operations throughout the Middle East, and the NATO member is a valued ally in the fight against the Islamic State and the defense of Europe. In addition, Turkey is trying to keep the tide of refugees fleeing Syria and other conflict zones from flooding Europe. 
 
 A more powerful Erdogan, who could be around at least another decade, worries European leaders who have expressed concerns about his move away from democracy. That has made the European Union less receptive to Turkey's bid to become a member. Erdogan also clashed with the Obama administration for not extraditing exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, a political rival living in Pennsylvania who the Turkish president says was behind the July coup attempt. 
 
 If voters approve the constitutional change, Erdogan could issue sweeping decrees without legislative approval, appoint his own cabinet and two-thirds of federal judges and have the authority to declare a state of emergency and dissolve parliament. Elected as prime minister in 2002 and president in 2014, Erdogan would have a chance to stand for re-election twice and remain in power until 2029 under the changes. 
 
 Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan waves to supporters during a "Vote Yes" rally in Sanliurfa, Turkey. (Photo: European Pressphoto Agency) 
 
 Turkish pollster Murat Gezici said 18% of registered voters plan to boycott the referendum because they believe Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party will win, and that could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. “Participation is key,” Gezici said. 
 
 There are signs that the government is trying to silence open dissent. TV host Irfan Digermenci was fired for vowing on social media to vote "no," while other media personalities supporting the "yes" campaign kept their jobs. Ali Gul, a law student, was arrested on charges of insulting the president on social media after his comical video supporting a "no" vote went viral. A TV interview with Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk, who wanted to explain his reasons for voting no, was canceled. 
 
 Erdogan and his party are mounting an intensive campaign. Ads featuring his photo cover billboards and high-rise buildings. Erdogan draws large crowds, even in Diyarbakir, a region where Turkish airstrikes have killed at least 340 civilians and displaced 355,000 people in the country's southeast Kurdish region in the past two years, according to Human Rights Watch. 
 
 People walk in front of an exhibition named "The leader of the century" by Turkish artist Faysal Bugday, consisting of pictures of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Subway station in Ankara, Turkey, on April 11, 2017. (Photo: Tumay Berkin, European Pressphoto Agency) 
 
 In Istanbul’s more secular neighborhoods, campaign ads exhorting citizens to vote "no" cover buildings. Turkish women’s rights activists, who fear a backlash against them for wearing Western clothing, have created a Women Say No group to campaign on the streets and in cafes. 
 
 Nicholas Danforth, a Turkey expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said the country using a democratic election to install authoritarianism. “Erdogan's continued success is a frightening example of how illiberal populism can destroy democracy at the ballot box,” Danforth said. 
 
 “The best-case scenario would be a modicum of authoritarian stability,” Danforth said. “If the referendum wins narrowly amid allegations of fraud, the worst-case scenario would be mass protests met with a violent government crackdown." 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2on1bex ||||| ANKARA, Turkey — The political career of Yasar Yakis, a former foreign minister of Turkey, offers a telling look at the trajectory of the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 
 
 Fifteen years ago, Mr. Yakis was a founding member of Mr. Erdogan’s political group, the Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P. for short. Mr. Yakis was a career diplomat and stalwart of the secular Turkish bureaucracy, and his appointment as foreign minister in 2002 embodied the party’s attempts to appeal beyond its conservative, Islamist base. 
 
 But less than four months later, Mr. Yakis lost his cabinet post. In the years since, he has been increasingly at odds with Mr. Erdogan, as the leader’s policies grew increasingly authoritarian. 
 
 Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Yakis remarked, once compared democracy with a tram: You can leave it once you reach your stop. Today, Mr. Yakis said, Mr. Erdogan “is not any longer on the tram.” ||||| Turkish citizens will head to the polls on Sunday to vote on a new draft constitution which could dramatically increase the powers of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 
 
 The fast-approaching referendum could prove to be the most controversial political change in a generation with potentially far-reaching and longstanding consequences. 
 
 CNBC takes a look at everything you need to know ahead of the vote.
– Voters in Turkey go to the polls Sunday, but this is no ordinary election. Technically, it's about whether to shift from a parliamentary to a presidential system, reports CNBC. But the bigger issue is that it would result in sweeping new powers for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Supporters say that's necessary to stabilize a nation in crisis, but critics fear what they say would be one-man rule devoid of checks on his power. More on what it means: The Wall Street Journal lists some of the powers Erdogan would get, including the ability to appoint vice presidents and Cabinet ministers without parliament's approval, and the authority to dissolve parliament on any grounds and issue decrees. He'd also appoint most top judges, and the prime minister's post would disappear. The changes would mean that Erdogan could theoretically remain president through 2029, reports US News & World Report. The vote is expected to be close. Reuters estimates the "yes" camp has a slight edge at 51%. USA Today sees "major ripple effects" of a yes vote for Europe, the Middle East, NATO, and the US. It notes that the US has a strategic military base in Turkey. The Nationalist Movement Party is on the "yes" side. TRT World lists its arguments in favor of a presidential republic, including that it’s more in keeping with Turkish tradition and will benefit national security. But the Economist argues that a new constitution could push Turkey "into Russia's arms" while making Erdogan "an elected dictator." Given that Erdogan has shown "how cruelly power can be abused" since a failed coup, that does not bode well, the piece states. "Economist, mind your own business," responds Fahrettin Altun at Daily Sabah. He argues that the Economist and Western media in general are trying "to interfere in Turkey's politics" to resurrect an ideal of a "dream-like 'liberal Europe.'" The New York Times explores the question of whether Erdogan is using a refugee crisis and struggling economy "to shroud a power grab that would sound the death knell for Turkish democracy." Whatever the result, the short-term implications won't be huge because Erdogan is already acting with increased authority amid the chaos. What it means for the longer term is a different story. Yusef Kanli argues the referendum won't solve Turkey’s problems, no matter the outcome. "A campaign might be over but the war still not," he writes at the Hurriyet Daily News.