This is an archive of past discussions about Turkey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a reminder that the Lede follows the body. The content of the body should be determined before any major revisions to the LEDE. Both the proposer of the above RfC and the Closer should familiarize themselves with our basic policies before proposing/closing any further RfC's. I have reworked the lede to reflect the article content (the article content in turn reflects the content of several "main" articles on the various specific topics involved.) This is basically destructive to the encyclopedia and in violation of all of our policies. I very much recommend that the closer take some time off from closing RfCs. Seraphim System(talk)10:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
And I recommend you approach AN and only AN (Venue is important! ), challenging the close of the RFC held above and prob. with a secondary proposal asking me to stay off from closing further RFCs.Further it may be prudential to note that a closure remains valid unless overturned, despite concerns of a heavily involved participant about it's validity.Also, this message was better suited for my t/p.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave10:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That is your recommendation? AN/I and a proposal that you not be allowed to close RfCs? Because if that is your recommendation I certainly think AN/I should accommodate you. The closure does not even make sense. The content that is now in the lede is directly sourced in the article. It is, at best, messy incompetence. If MAJOR changes need to be made in this topic area that effect MULTIPLE articles it is pretty clear that a hasty RfC starting with the LEDE of the TOP LEVEL article is the wrong way to go about it. I don't know if you are an admin but unilaterally imposing major changes that effect multiple articles starting with the lede based on "common sense" and ZERO source based discussion seems like a pretty solid reason for editors to be irritated (and while in the minority the several editors who were upset by this were very seriously upset at this abuse, so please don't try to make it sound like it was just me voicing concerns.) Seraphim System(talk)11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That line is out, it is not the issue. You can not in your closing dictate the future content of the article or what topics may be discussed on talk in the future, you may not "judge" a dispute about a source between two editors in the extended discussion, say that one editors "Huffington Post" source trumps Britannica, and claim that you've done it all in the interests of not supervoting. This RfC was about removal of one line - and that is the ENTIRETY of what I intend to honor. That is the ONLY thing there is consensus for. Most people who commented on removal were not even peripherally involved in the extended discussion. For example, there were issues raised for example that "multicultural" was not in the article and so it should be removed from the lede. I also want to be clear up front for my reasons, because I have opened a discussion about this (that of course anyone is welcome to participate in.) Seraphim System(talk)"11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what you are doing is bypassing the RFC closure on grounds of fine technicalities.That is not allowed.And thus, before you re-add any info pertaining to the part. words in the lead, that were removed as a result of the prev. RFC, regain consensus at this talk-page irrespective of the grammatical formatting of the sentence (you plan to add) and whether that is uni-sourced/multi-sourced/un-sourced.This statement may be viewed as an extension of the prev. RFC close.Thank you!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The closure was only for removal of that line. (For example some voted for remival because the line as it was written included content that was not discussed in the article. The only thing I've added is the most basic encyclopedic information that is already sourced and discussed in the article. If it is necessary to hahs this out to *clarify* the scope of your closing in AN/I then we can do that (or I will at least have to post there for discussion before RS/N or other boards because of the WP:FORUMSHOP rule) Seraphim System(talk)17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well let us see where the talk discussion I opened goes. If indeed a dispute arises about Britannica and WP:AGEMATTERS or the meaning of parliamentary democracy vs "democracy" ("parliamentary democracy" was not discussed at all the RfC) the closing will HAVR to be discussed first on AN/I before being posted to RS/n or any other other forum. I also also obliged to first attempt to discuss this with you (the closer), in the event that you voluntarily agree to clarify and limit your closing to question that was proposed in the RfC Seraphim System(talk)17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
