Talk:Istanbul Convention

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

Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is no mention of criticism of the Istanbul Convention. No mention that it is based on the controversial Duluth Model. No mention that it introduces gender ideology. No mention that it is sexist - equates women to victims (despite the fact that men make up about 40% of domestic violence victims), while seeking to protect only women from such violence. The whole article seems very biased, more like an ad written by a third wave feminist than an actual attempt at an encyclopedia entry. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just call it the Istanbul Convention on domestic violence as a shorthand? BrianBrecker (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, especially if "Istanbul Convention" is the

talk) 07:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I never did look into it, but Buidhe took care of it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On October 20, 2019 there was a March on the streets of Baku, more specifically, Torgovaya. The name of the march was "Say no to the violence against women!". The participants also called for Azerbaijani Government to ratify the Istanbul Convention. [1], [2], [3], [4] Next day, it was announced that the local government received a series of proposals from State Committee on Family, Women and Child Issues. Number of lawyers and judges were called to work on certain laws, and the gov considers ratifying the Istanbul Convention. [5], [6], [7] I hope these infos could be added to the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section "Debates in Slovakia". There is absolutely no reason why such a huge section which goes into detail about the political battles and the elections from

The IP repeatedly removes this content. As I stated earlier, the way to improve the article is to add a section about reception and subsequent debates in other countries, not remove content that is relevant and supported by reliable sources. The question of how the treaty was received in Slovakia is absoletely relevant, and we can add similar sections for other countries. Reception of the treaty is an important aspect according to secondary sources about the treaty[8][9] (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section for Slovakia is directly pertinent and should be retained. @2a02:2f01:53ff:ffff::6465:6265: It is normal to expand an article in this manner. If it becomes necessary, we can fork the content into a new article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Poland is following suit.

Zezen (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Accusations of public manipulation against the Convention

Where is the opposite: the Criticism section? Zezen (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right — a Criticism section is badly needed. I’ll try to write one. Yaguzi (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just change it to "Istanbul Convention" Henrymorgan92 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form, the Criticism section is more a criticism of the critics, than a criticism of the convention itself. The convention states "Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote changes .... eradicating .... traditions ... which are based on ... stereotyped roles for women and men." That goes far beyond what ordinary people would expect under the title of "preventing violence". The quote from the Council of Europe press release is misleading in that it portrays the criticism as unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19C:8396:CD3B:E46C:AF23:2E87 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Regardless of one's personal opinions on the convention, at the moment the criticism section doesn't list criticisms of the policy, but reasons why the criticisms are wrong. Since the purpose of a criticism section on Wikipedia is to list criticisms, not argue against them, this section should be amended to provide properly sourced explanations of what the criticisms actually are (not why they're wrong), or simply be removed. At the moment, especially with the inclusion of a video of one of the convention's proponents arguing against criticism (which is not something you'd expect on any other article's criticism section), this section is merely editorialism rather than an encyclopedic recording of what critics have to say. 2601:405:4400:9420:5175:B20E:F653:2E42 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some criticisms of the convention are: the approach that the convention is seen to take towards

parental rights with regard to how they raise their children. The critics see problems both with the convention text itself and with the explanatory report of the convention.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool map showing Imbros as Greece and ignores 80% of Russia. Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It s a nice map, isn't it! I am sure a lot can be improved. Feel free to create a map that you think fits better here; wikipedia can be edited by anyone. --L.tak (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map can easily be edited and corrected with a SVG editor. Simple as that. If someone doesn't have the necessary knowledge on SVG editing, can ask around... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal from the treaty takes at least 3 months and has to be accepted by the CoE secretary general. See article 77 of the treaty:[10] All Turkey has done is announced that it is going to start that process. The treaty will still be in force for the next three months. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is much appreciated. I think it is useful to have this here so future editors can know too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article 77 is about territorial application. It's article 80 that is relevant for the withdrawl from the convention. It reads:

Article 80 – Denunciation

1. Any Party may, at any time, denounce this Convention by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

2. Such denunciation shall become effective on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary General. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:7AFB (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this discussion, but have implemented something exactly along the lines discussed here ;-) L.tak (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a hatnote to link to the disambiguation page Treaty of Constantinople (disambiguation) for other conventions/protocols named after Istanbul (this disambiguation page lists both Istanbul and Constantinople uses) -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{other uses|Treaty of Constantinople (disambiguation){{!}}Istanbul Treaty}}

-- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Numerous grammar mistakes and misspellings under "Turkey's announcement of withdrawal"

Change "The withdrawal has been criticized both domestically and internationally, including the opposition parties in the country, foreign leaders, the Council of Europe, NGOs and in the social media" to "The withdrawal has been criticized both domestically and internationally, including by the opposition parties in the country, foreign leaders, the Council of Europe, NGOs and on social media."

Change "The CHP spokesperson claimed that the agreement cannot be withdrawn without parliamentary approval, since it is approved by parliament on 24 November 2011" to "A CHP spokesperson claimed that the agreement cannot be withdrawn without parliamentary approval, since it was originally approved by parliament on 24 November 2011"

Change "According to CHP and some lawyers, the right to approve the international agreements still belongs to the parliament according to Article 90 of the Constitution" to "According to the CHP and various lawyers, the right to approve the withdrawal belongs to Parliament according to Article 90 of the Constitution."

Get rid of "Therefore, when withdrawning from these treaties, the parliamentary approval is needed." That is implied in the above sentence and this sentence has numerous grammar errors.

Change "According to the government, the president has the authority to withdraw from international agreements as stated in article 3 of the presidential decree no. 9." to "However, the government claims the president has the authority to withdraw from international agreements, as stated in article 3 of the presidential decree no. 9."

Change "The US President Joe Biden described the move" to "US President Joe Biden described the move"

Change "The Turkish Presidency in an official statement released publicly" to "In an official statement, the Turkish Presidency..."

Change "A view also supported by conservative groups and officials from Erdoğan's Islamic-oriented ruling party, the AKP, who claim that the agreement is promoting homosexuality and encouraging divorce, undermining what, in their view, constitutes a "sacred" family." to "That view is shared by conservative groups and officials from the AKP, who claim that the agreement promotes homosexuality, encourages divorce and undermines the "sacred" family."

Change "Answering to criticism over the legality of withdrawal if it was decided by the Presidency instead of the Parliament, Erdoğan insisted on that it was his decision not the parliaments and that the withdrawal was "completely legal" to "Answering to criticism over the legality of withdrawal by the Presidency instead of Parliament, Erdoğan insisted his decision was "completely legal"" Multisupermono (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new map might be needed to reflect Turkey's leaving of the treaty. Esmost ^talk 13:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• President of Turkey decided for withdraw on 20 March 2021 but Turkey's decision to withdrawal will enter into force on 1 July 2021 according to Article 80 of the Convention. On 22 March the Secretary General of the Council of Europe also stated it. [11] I think the file should be changed on the date this withdrawal enter into the force. Uncitoyen (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism" section isn't a criticism of the Convention, it's a criticism of the opposition to the convention. Typical Wikipedia, biased to the core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2485:DB00:AD6:8CE0:136A:2F7 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits on 10 March 2021 changing the capitalization of the full title of the treaty per

Criticism by far right NA and LPV in Latvia should also be added to the criticism section. 2A03:EC00:B95C:E672:0:0:0:2 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]