Talk:2018 Turkish presidential election

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Turkey Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page should Merge with

Alright, so there has been some quarreling over the layout of the article in general, and over the candiates section in particular. Some users would clearly prefer to expand the candidates section with as much information as possible, namely with information on all speculated candidates, signature collection, and a table of final candidates, in addition to the portraits of (so far) 37 different speculated candidates. Conversely, I feel the need to emphasize that this is not an election in the United States or Argentina. Specifically, there is no drawn-out or comprehensive primary season; indeed, most of the candidates here are only "speculated", and have not actually even expressed the vaguest of interest in running. Now what does that mean in practice? It means that, effectively, any journalist in any newspaper could speculate about a possible candidacy, and then that speculation would be added to this list, only further bloating it. We have to set a new, higer threshold for who is included here. I'll come back to a solution at the bottom of this entry. Overall, the sheer size of the section on candidate nominations is unquestionably too large as it is. Worse yet, the entire article is now a cluster of tables and lists, where we should really be focusing on filling it in with actual bodies of text. This is the reason behind my outright rejection of many of the contributions made by Pizzalover12; they largely consist of new lists and tables, with which the article is overflowing already. The fact that the article is already disjointed, and frankly looks like it needs a major clean-up already two months before the actual election, is reason to worry, and part of my reason for simply blocking the largest new additions.

Like I have emphasized, this article should emulate pre-existing articles on presidential elections, and preferably the one held in Turkey in 2014. It is important that we all respect the established manual of style, and avoid adding in entire new sections in weird places, or sections that are already covered. For example, the move to add a section titled no less than "Others who expressed interest" without further clarification, followed by a small list of 2-3 minor parties as the first section in the article, shows that the editor responsible 1) did not even read the entire article himself before adding it, and 2) has a very poor understanding of how Wikipedia articles, and specifically election articles, should look. This is not meant as a personal attack; everyone is allowed to contribute here! Still, we must be able to demand the minimum requirement that contributors have a basic understanding of how these articles work.

I think a lot of these issues can be resolved to some degree by adhering to the following guidelines from this point:

• Don't add more tables and lists before we have first added more bodies of text, and avoid adding many more at all before we insert the one containing the final election results. Don't add a separate table for the number of signatures collected per candidate; this can just as well be explained in proper writing.
• The "Nomination process" subsection has to be reduced in size, or at the very least seriously restructured. As mentioned, this is not a system with formalized primaries, and most of the section is taken up by speculations. I propose that once we know the finalized, official list of candidates, we remove all those candidates who have only been speculated about, especially those who at some point dismissed running (with perhaps the sole exception of party leaders). I'd say up to 4-5 names per party, at the very most, could be acceptable in the final article. Listing twenty-one (!) potential candidates for CHP, a party with no primary process, and from which only a small handful have actually stated an explicit wish to obtain the nomination at all, is clearly not right.

— Μαρκος Δ 18:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selahattin Demirtaş, who is jailed, could really participate to the election or he will be barred ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the CHP-İYİ-SP-DP alliance has not been officially announced yet. There have been various speculations, but at their best, they are still just speculation. Wikipedia should be waiting for news and official announcements, not trying to jump ahead, the name of the alliance may well end up not being just "Millet". Per

In addition, I should add that İnce and Akşener are not endorsed in any way by the alliance. The alliance is relevant for the parliamentary election only. Listing an alliance in the infobox for these candidates creates a false impression. --GGT (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the name of the alliance was, in fact, released early on; just because it was had not yet been reported on by the largest media outlets, that doesn't mean it was not confirmed. Meanwhile, I completely agree with you that the alliances should not be included in the candidate infobox. The parliamentary alliances are irrelevant in the presidential election. — Μαρκος Δ 13:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that is not being addressed here. The Millet Alliance may not have any relevance to the first round of the presidential election, but the People's Alliance does because it is both a parliamentary and presidential alliance. Therefore, we would have to keep 'People's Alliance' under Erdogan and write 'None' under the other candidates, which would create even more of a false impression. I would ultimately suggest keeping the Alliances, because in the second round, it is likely that everyone from the Millet Alliance will support the remaining second round candidate, whoever he or she may be. So ultimately, alliances will make sense on the two-candidate infobox that we will be ending up with (unless Erdogan wins in the first round) Nub Cake (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Some links are broken. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose of that 'lead #2' column. It just shows the lead that the second-placed candidate has over the third-placed candidate. That's not original research by any measure; at least not more than what showing the first-placed candidate's lead over the second-placed one is. That being said, having two separate 'lead' columns is excessive in my opinion, and I would support its removal. Unless there are objections, I'll likely do it in a day or two. Μαρκος Δ 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. It is my own mistake. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the usefulness of it has not been made evident enough. At the moment, Meral Akşener and Muharrem İnce both have a realistic chance of going into the second round. The lead #2 column shows by how much one candidate is ahead of the other in terms of advancing to the run off. In my opinion, it is even more important than lead #1, as Erdoğan's first place finish is pretty much foregone by a healthy lead, whereas the identity of the opposition candidate in the second round is both crucial and uncertain. Nub Cake (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand your reasoning, but I still oppose its inclusion. First off, there is no precedence for this that I know of. For instance, we did not do it for the French election in 2017, even though that was a four-way race by the end. Further, I think making exceptions like this is a slippery slope in terms of neutrality. I mean, if we never do this elsewhere, why do it here? Specifically, what's so special about the third-placed candidate that they should be included when they are not in any other articles, and why should Tayyip's relative dominance be allowed to change the table structure? Besides, we already show the second-round polls and leads, so we are already making it clear to the reader that it's a multi-scenario race. Μαρκος Δ 19:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I must strongly urge you to include the polls that you place in your own new table, in the polling article as well. Right now it is inconsistent. Finally, remember that the layout of the original table is the result of discussion and consensus-building over time. Your new table must abide by the same decisions (for instance, the votes cast in 2014 must not be listed as 'sample', as has been established previously).

I'm not that bothered much whether we keep the lead #2 or not but I must say I find your logic somewhat flawed and I'm therefore not sure you entirely understand my logic. First of all, just because it hasn't been done in other articles, it doesn't mean it is not allowed. You give the French example and mention that it is a four-way race. Well then, why on earth isn't there a lead #2? It is a clear way of showing who has the higher chances of advancing into the run-off (a fight between Ince and Aksener in this case). You mention neutrality (or lack thereof), I don't see what that has to do with anything here. You ask what is important about the third-placed candidate. It's not the third placed candidate, but rather the lead of the second-placed candidate over the third-placed, as it demonstrates the chances of each candidate in advancing to the run-off. You then mention Erdogan's lead and what it has to do with anything - the answer is, nothing whatsoever. It is the nature of the election (i.e. a two-candidate run-off), not any of the specific candidates, that make a lead #2 column both important and insightful. To be honest, I would regard its removal on the basis that 'it's not been done in other articles' (an argument I find entirely unconvincing and frankly irrelevant) as a deletion of valid information, which is of course not encouraged. To be honest, all this discussion over one little table row that isn't doing any harm is a rather poor use of both of our time, so I hope this matter is not taken any further.

In terms of your comment on the opinion poll table, I think you'll find that they have different intentions. The one in the article only lists the most recent polls as a summary, while the one in the actual opinion poll article begins from the moment all six candidates were confirmed. If there are any flaws in them that go against consensus, please assume that it was due to oversight on my part and not down to any bad intentions, and feel free to correct it. We are, after all, all editors here. Nub Cake (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an explanation why the campaign articles for Akşener and Perinçek, but not for the other four candidates, have been reduced to "draft" status? See here and here. In my opinion, it might make sense to improve these campaign articles, and/or merge them into the candidates' personal articles, but just making them disappear, even selectively, does not appear right. Edit: Pinging User:Bradv who did it.-- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Μαρκος Δ replaced the original results table with this. I restored the original as IMO it's much better, but unfortunately he's not respecting BRD and has made a few reverts to get his version back in, so I'm starting the discussion.

My view is that the original is superior as it's more compact and doesn't have unnecessary translations or vote share change column. Views please! Number 57 20:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Μαρκος Δ has now removed the results table entirely rather than accept another format. This is petty and disruptive. Number 57 20:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who removed it; some IP user did. But you have to grow up and talk to me directly, because the way you are presenting this makes it look like you are tattling on me to an adult. Besides, you are not even giving me enough time to respond before you make blanket changes; overall, you are beeing extremely disruptive by coming here, insisting on last-minute changes, and choosing to trigger edit wars rather than discussing the issue like a responsible user. It also seems like you don't understand the rule you are referring to. In that you came in way later to make a revert, even after multiple other users had seen and edited the article, it could be considered that you made a bold edit, I reverted it, and then you reverted that again, triggering an edit war. That is not the right procedure. Already in my first revert, I asked you to discuss with me, but you refused and rather went with yet another revert. You have some nerve to accuse me of being disruptive after displaying such behavior.

The new table is superior in that it contains more information. Party abbreviations and acronyms should be added to the Turkish translations, since they are likely more familiar to readers than both the parties' Turkish and English names. It's important that we give readers as much of a chance as possible to understand context and background, and if that means including Turkish names and abbreviations, that is what we must do. Μαρκος Δ 20:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you did remove it, and secondly, this edit summary was unnecessary and wrong (you don't get to tell someone else not to revert and you definitely should not be shouting it).

Back on topic, these things (translations, acronyms) are not necessary in the results table. They should be noted earlier in the article if they're important. Number 57 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find the 'vote share change' (aka. swing) figures useful. As to whether the information is rendered in large vs. compact form, I don't really mind either way. Can we focus on the important stuff, please, like what's happening to democracy in Turkey...? DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 My point was that I was not the one to remove it; I reverted to an edit by some other user. I can tell people to discuss on the talk page rather than reverting, since the latter is unconstructive. You just wiped out a new template made explicitly for this purpose, with the worst argument I've ever seen, if just saying that the old version is "vastly superior" can even be considered an argument. Capital letters on a single word in my edit summary was for emphasis, since italics are not possible in summaries. I don't know why I even bother explaining this to you, since you clearly only care about semantics, and not about arguing for your changes. Translations are used in these tables (albeit for parliamentary elections), in every single Turkish election article back to 1995. Why insist on removing them now? Μαρκος Δ 21:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have put in Erdoğan as president in the info box and the AKP there too (in the "after_election" and "after_party" sections of the info box, specifically). My thoughts on it are to wait until the official results are released. I decided to address the issue here instead of starting an edit war. What do you all think? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: I think you're right, that does seem a bit premature; at the very least it should be qualified with 'pending official confirmation' or words to that effect. I gather the leading opposition candidate is expected to make a speech or statement at noon local time, presumably to concede, although I don't know that for sure. Whether that is then the point where this becomes official, or more generally what the procedure is, again I don't know. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the page of

Strongly Support, the presidential and parliamentary elections held the same day, President Erdogan also is the leader of the

Taiwan general election, 2016 on 16 January 2016. Presidential and legislative elections held on the same day, and Tsai Ing-wen is the leader of the Democratic Progressive Party.Paul Lincoln (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Strongly oppose, the very reason the two articles were split (with a strong consensus) in the first place was because having both elections in one article would make that article very complicated to navigate and incredibly messy. Having two separate articles (which are easily linked to each other at the very top) allows for easier navigation. I am personally opposed to the style used by the example article (

Taiwan general election, 2016) for this reason. Nub Cake (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Strongly support, since, despite the above user's opinion, a joint article is virtually universal for countries with presidential systems, bar a few such as the United States. Μαρκος Δ 15:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of this article does not say who won the election. What's the best way to add that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]