Talk:2014 Turkish local elections

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Links[edit]

>> Twitter ban sparks outrage in Turkey >> Turkish riot police quash protests near Ankara election commission >> Erdogan Foes Cry Fraud Amid Crackdown (Lihaas (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Original research[edit]

A user, a single purpose account, has added whole new sections without any references. Other than being WP:OR the edits are marred with lack of neutrality with words like "police brutality". I am going to remove those parts. If they come back with sources and a less pointed language I guess there will not be a problem to accept those edits. If this user is a newcomer, I recommend it to read WP policies and guidelines, beginning with WP:NPOV. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I completely take your point. Rather than remove, perhaps it would be more useful for you to "neutralise" these terms? I don't know, for example "alleged police brutality" or "questionable police conduct" or similar? I think it would be more effective to change these controversial terms rather than remove them completely. I have also tried to make the article more neutral in that I have also added allegations of fraud from the ruling party itself, and I will reiterate this point further if it has not been made clear. What I would also say is that the results of these elections are not at all clear at the moment, since several re-counts are taking place and already large amounts of municipalities have changed mayors as a result. Obviously, when the results are finalised, the actual results and proper information about the elections itself will no doubt be added. Can I also ask what your view would be to returning the "election campaign" and "party aims" sections, but with references to each point? I didn't add them earlier (admittedly I was preoccupied with something else), but say if I found the resources which confirmed each aim of each party, would that be fine? T.C. Ataturkiye (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only recommend you to try to be neutral and always act objectively. Using sources is essential but not everything. One can always tend to use only the sources that fit its own POV or (ab)use them in that direction. You should ask yourself the question: Am I here to really tell this election story or -for this or that reason that we may not know- I want to present a grim picture of it? Just look at the mirror and decide why you chose this one as your only(?) article of interest. You are supposed to convince yourself, before others, that you want to help write an encyclopedia, and of course a good one, which means, before everything, an objective one. The rest are details. Thanks for reading. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another point (not a question): "Large amounts of municipalities have changed mayors as a result" (of re-counts)! Really? I have observed these elections closely and the only such change occurred at the election for Yalova. The change occurred before any official result was announced, so even that cannot be considered as such. Just a side note. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I will try to be as neutral as possible, especially when writing about any controversy. I can, however, categorically say that while Yalova is the only province to change mayors, there are several district municipalities which have changed hands. Dalaman, Köyceğiz (which has changed twice) and Manyas are just some examples from the top of my head. T.C. Ataturkiye (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The results are not final[edit]

YSK has not yet released the results of the election. I think we should wait till then to enter the results. So far the numbers are taken either from Cihan Haber Ajansı or Anadolu Ajansı—where both have conflicting results. -- Infestor ^T•C 16:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Now they are. The YSK (Supreme Electoral Commission) announced the official results. Maybe the user User:T.C. Ataturkiye now will develop the article, providing us with details, as they seem to have a good knowledge of Turkish. Of course if they still check this article and remember that user name, which seems to have been created specifically for this article. They spent quite some time to tell us about a temporary Twitter ban and how several people died in alleged electoral strife in the country. I suppose and expect their only intention was not to present a grim look about a certain country, right? Writing about elections in a country without showing any interest in the results is somehow difficult to understand and comment on. If you are reading these lines you may wish to come back and contribute with your usual user name, too. On the other hand, I hope this source I provided will also help settle down uncalled for edit fights on numbers. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full results, published at the official newspaper of Turkey, can be found here: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/05/20140506M1-1.pdf Unfortunately, its format makes it a bit inconvenient to extract the figures to the page. Also, for those who are unfamiliar with Turkish local elections, the last table is the relevant one. Normally the first table (City council results) would be used, but in this election, the rules were changed so that most cities do not have city councils, therefore now the municipal councils (the last table) is the most comprehensive one. So, the official results are: AKP: 42.87%, 26.34%, MHP: 17.82%. I have updated the infobox, but updating the table is going to take a little more effort.--Cfsenel (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a better format, the municipal councils results are here: http://www.ysk.gov.tr/cs/groups/public/documents/document/ndq0/mda0/~edisp/yskpwcn1_4444004538.pdf --Cfsenel (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its good that the official results have finally been released. Are there similar tables for the 2009 local elections so that we can also calculate changes and swings? Although, it's now the case that the number of municipalities have been reduced substantially to 1,381, meaning that such calculations may not really be representative or necessary T.C. Ataturkiye (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I found the official 2009 election results and updated the infobox. Because of the reforms to the numbers of representatives elected, I decided to not include a "mayor change" or "councillor change" row, since these won't be representative of the party's performances. The infobox looks clustered with references at the moment, something I've noticed that some election articles (e.g. United Kingdom general election, 2010), lack. Maybe it would look tidier if we moved the references to the actual table or results? T.C. Ataturkiye (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]