User talk:Tufankaya

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from MV Mavi Marmara. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nath1991 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nath, thak you for your help. Actually I am new at Wikipedia and still learning the details. Since you have more experience on this website I want to ask you how I can edit a biased "contribution" that has no relationship with a certain article. On "Mavi Marmara" article some people are making edits that have no relation with the article. The purpose of these edits are to support their biased personal opinions. Everything seem correct on theory, there is an information, there is a source, etc. But the edit have no neutral contribution on the article rater than supporting their cases. An example is as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MV_Mavi_Marmara&action=historysubmit&diff=369864531&oldid=369454589

How can I edit such "contributions"?

Thanks in advance

Hi Tufankaya, I saw your note at Nath's talk page. The first detail you could learn is to end your posts on talk pages with four tildes ("~~~~"). That automatically translates into your username and the current date and time, which is very helpful for everyone so they know who is commenting and when. If you try editing a page and just type four tildes then hit "Show preview" you will see how this works.

As to your concern with the Mavi Marmara, the edit you link to doesn't look all that bad to me. At Wikipedia we try to present all notable views on a topic, according to their weight (general public and expert acceptance) and in a fashion that doesn't express any particular point of view. The view of IMFA seems relevant to this topic and I don't see any big problem within the body of the article.

Do you disagree with the statement that the Mavi Marmara was not carrying humanitarian aid? If so, you need to find a reliable source that says it in fact was carrying such cargo. and we can modify the article to make that clear. I don't see any reason why IMFA would straight-out lie about something like this, so it seems to be a valid statement of interest to our readers. Mavi Marmara was part of the convoy but was not itself carrying aid.

The next thing you could do is to find reliable sources that document the reasons why the ship was there in the first place. To me, the answer is pretty obvious - to support a flotilla of ships, some of which were carrying humanitarian materiel likely to be interdicted by Israeli forces, and to make a point about whether a sovereign country really can just decide to have a blockade wherever it wants. But my opinion (and yours) is not really worth a lot here. You need to research the subject carefully and help to build up a balanced account of the incident that includes all the noteworthy views on what happened. Even the views you disagree with - that's what we do here.

I'm going to change the wording of that bit from "reported" to "stated" but other than that I think it's fair to keep it. Franamax (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Franamax has sorted it out :) Nath1991 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Franamax, thanks for your help. As I said I am new here and appreciate your message. I will start to add Tufankaya (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) from now on. About Mavi Marmara case I think that wikipedia is really wonderful when it is about articles such as mushrooms, astrophysics, mozart, etc. But I observe that when it comes to disputed matters everyone is playing a "contribution" game to support their biased point of views. I think Mavi Marmara was one of them. You point that views of IMFA is relevant to this topic and I also agree with you, yes there is a relevance, article is about the ship and IMFA give a statement about the ship. But this article is a ship that created a conflict between Israeli government and Turkey or Arap world or international society or islamic charity organisations or Hamas, or bloody terrorists, whatever. At least there is one neutral point that Israeli government is one of the "sides" at this conflict. Don't you think that editing the statement of IMFA at the end of this article but not editing the statement of any "other side" makes this article biased? We can play with the words to support our cases. I can edit at the end of Jewish holocaust article as Joseph Goebbels stated that "Allied powers blame Reich state that we sent Jews to death camps by trains but according to our records no Jewish person is beed transferred to concentration camps by passanger vagoons of Reich trains" Yes, this statement is true, really no Jewish is sent to death camps with passanger trains, because they sent them with cargo trains. Israeli government claimed that the Gaza flotilla have no aim to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza people and this edit smell like "Islamists claim that they came to Gaza shores for humanitarian reasons but we could not find any humanitarian aid inside the ship" Do we really have to play this game? Yes there were no humanitarian aid cargo inside Mavi Marmara, because, Mavi Marmara was a passanger ship and people who bring these aids were travelling with this ship and cargo ships were followed Mavi Marmara. So yes, Mavi Marmara was not carrying any humanitarian aid, good. So may I learn what is the significance of this "contribution"? People can play with the words to support their cases but I believe this damage the respectability of this website. Actually English is not my native language so I am not that much good on playing with words but I can see that there is something wrong here. Tufankaya (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to help where I can, you'll find that most people here are like that. There is quite a lot to learn.

You are correct that in disputed areas, some people from opposing "sides" try to rewrite the article to tell their own "story". This has been such a problem in the Palestine-Israel area that special sanctions have been put in place to let administrators act quickly when there are problems, see WP:ARBPIA. I disagree with you though that there is a problem with the edit. It is a verifiable fact, not an opinion of IMFA or a justification for the killings. It doesn't try to lead the reader to any conclusion. It would be different if we were quoting an Israeli official as saying "these people were criminals and terrorists", then we would need to add a quote from someone else saying "they were innocent victims trying to right a terrible injustice", but in this case the statement just lays out facts and lets the reader decide for themselves on a very complex issue (the law of the sea among other things). For me, omitting the fact would not help our readers.

Also, just for your information, it's usually best not to use comparisons to Nazi Germany to make your point. That is also something else that people do a lot here and elsewhere on the internet, enough that it is called Godwin's Law (Mike Godwin is now our lawyer!). Your comparison is valid, it's just better not to use it. And actually I think the encyclopedia would be better if it had both Goebbels' statement and the fact that they used boxcars, because it would help the reader learn about how "propaganda" became the same thing as lying (propaganda used to mean providing information before Goebbels came along).

Good luck with your editing and if there's anything else I can help with, just ask! Franamax (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advices Franamax. I specially find Godwin's Law enjoying, I would not know that:)

Yes, IMFA statement is a verifiable fact and do not try to justify anything. But it does try to lead the reader to a conclusion that flotilla were not carrying humanitarian aids. At least the edit in Mavi Marmara imply this. It looks very clear from my point of view. I still think that if the article finish with the statement of Israeli side, it also should contain another edit from the opposed side, too. Maybe someone else do it, not a big deal for me.

I am nice to meet with you, lets keep in contact:) Tufankaya (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. The IMFA quote only addresses this one ship. When you click through to the reference link, they partly list the cargo they seized from the other ships. It is wheelchairs, crutches, medicine, etc. This is clearly humanitarian aid and the Israeli government is saying itself that is what the cargo ships were carrying. All the sentence says is that Mavi Marmara itself was not carrying aid. Yes of course the question comes up as to why that ship was there. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that IDF was right to shoot nine people, it just presents a fact and lets the reader decide on the good or bad parts. I don't care whether or not a partisan of Israel put the text into the article, it is a statement of fact that has a source and it has helped me to learn more about this very tragic incident. More interesting to me is to put myself in the place of the soldier who was told to climb out of a helicopter and jump onto a ship travelling at sea. That person had no connection to the political decisions behind all this, they just did their job - but they ended up killing someone. Would you enjoy life if that was you?

If the sentence doesn't look right at the very end of the article and you can think of a better place for it, feel free to move it! Have a read at our "be bold" guideline, just go do it. It's always best if your change might be controversial to explain it on the article talk page first, and stay relaxed if your change gets reverted. If that happens, discuss things on the article talk page. It's an area that admins watch pretty closely, so really, stay calm and friendly in your approach. (Which you have done a very good job of so far by the way!)

I am usually around, even if I don't edit much I read a LOT, so ask me for any problems that come up and I will try to help. Right now, I don't agree with you that there is a problem with that sentence. Maybe it could go to a better place in the article, I dunno. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]