Talk:Güzel İstanbul

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Güzel İstanbul damaged and standing in its new location in Yıldız Park

• ... that Güzel İstanbul (pictured), a sculpture by Gürdal Duyar, was removed nine days after its erection? Source: p 374 [Quote:“neredeyse koalisyonun sonunu getirecekti” Translated: It almost brought an end to the coalition] p 372 [9 days] Antmen, Ahu (1 Apr 2009). "TÜRK KÜLTÜRÜNDE BEDEN VE "GÜZEL İSTANBUL" OLAYI". Electronic Journal of Social Sciences (in Turkish). 8 (30): 366–375. ISSN 1304-0278
  • ALT0: ... that Gürdal Duyar's sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) was removed after only nine days?
  • ALT1: ... that Gürdal Duyar's sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) which personified the city of Istanbul through the depiction of nude woman was removed after only nine days?
  • ALT2: ... that Güzel İstanbul (pictured), a nude sculpture by Gürdal Duyar caused intense public debate and may have lead to the 37th government of Turkey eventually dissolving?
  • ALT3: ... that in 1974, the public debate about a nude sculpture (pictured) by Gürdal Duyar tested the cohesion of the 37th government of Turkey?
  • ALT4: ... that Gürdal Duyar's sculpture of a nude woman (pictured) erected in Istanbul was removed after only nine days; being considered indecent by the traditional conservative segment of society?
  • ALT5: ... that Güzel İstanbul (pictured) a nude sculpture by Gürdal Duyar was considered indecent and removed after only nine days?
  • ALT6: ... that Güzel İstanbul (pictured) a nude sculpture by Gürdal Duyar erected in 1974 in Istanbul was considered indecent and removed after only nine days?
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Gazozlu (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• @Gazozlu: The article seems to make extensive use of Geni.com, which is unreliable per WP:RSPS. There are also other seemingly unreliable sources like Internet Cini, which is clearly a personal blog. Is Galaksi Rehber a blog for an online art shop? Please double-check your sources for reliability and remove or replace them where required.

Additionally, ALT2 and ALT3's claims are not covered by the article, so I cannot consider them for this DYK. The other five seem to be variations of the same claims. What about this compression:

• ALTx: ... that Gürdal Duyar's nude sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) was removed after nine days by order of the Turkish government?

AGF on the offline sources. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 01:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the hook as you propose it, is that it wasn't removed by a unanimous decision of the government, rather the MSP half of the coalition was the one seeing the sculpture as a problem, and it was eventually removed by the order of Oğuzhan Asiltürk. All the while being debated in society (mainly between the traditional-conservatives and the pro-art&social-democratic people of society) whether the nude sculpture was obscene/suggestive or just a work of fine art. This affair was something that caused a rift between the two coalition parties because Necmettin Erbakan to break off the coalition if the sculpture was not removed. This political crisis is covered in (Antmen 2009) and also this non-free documentary. Gazozlu (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added in the part where Seyhun Topuz said about the affair, that it almost brought an end to the coalition government. This would support ALT2 and ALT3 hooks. Gazozlu (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I would now support ALT2 and ALT3 as well. The sourcing issues should still be addressed, though. IceWelder [✉] 07:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Internet Cini blog source has been removed.

-Galaksi Rehber isn't a blog, it's some kind of directory where certain writers propose and write about the things pictured in images and people can upvote them. There is a link to a blog but that is a separate website.

-Some of the sources from Geni have been removed. Some others are text dumps of newspaper articles or are other sources in the photo hosted on Geni. Gazozlu (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With incorrect sources now removed, the sentence "The next year Duyar made an Ataturk monument for Kayseri which was inaugurated in 1977." is left with no source at all. The sentence should get a new source or be removed. Additionally, Jonesey95 identified several references that do point to actual sources, which also need fixing. IceWelder [✉] 17:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sources and changed the text to be more accurate.Gazozlu (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for all your work. I think the article and hook are ready now. IceWelder [✉] 07:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Güzel İstanbul in the Yıldız Park in 2020.

• ... that the plinth of Güzel İstanbul (pictured) told a story of Istanbul with motifs; its air with a honeysuckle, its population with a bee, its divinity with a fig, and the many legends with a pomegranate? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1
  • ALT1: ... that the destroyed plinth of Gürdal Duyar's nude sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) contained reliefs of a fig, a pomegranate, a honeysuckle and a bee to represent different aspects of Istanbul? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1 Destroyed plinth.

Sources

• Antmen, Ahu (1 Apr 2009). "Türk Kültüründe Beden Ve "Güzel İstanbul" Olayı" [The body in Turkish culture and the "Beautiful Istanbul" affair]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences (in Turkish). 8 (30): 366–375. ISSN 1304-0278. Retrieved 13 Jun 2022.
• Şenol, Bahattin (11 March 1974). "«Güzel Istanbul» heykeli Karaköy Meydanına kondu" [The «Güzel Istanbul» sculpture has been placed on Karaköy Square]. Milliyet (in Turkish). p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Australian Wars

Created by Gazozlu (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Güzel İstanbul; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - The article has lots (10) of fair use images, and thus IMHO fail the minimal use criterion (the article has galleries with fair use images). I understand that a photo of it in its original location could be considered fair use, but the article has three. Also, there are two cartoons, four photos of its removal and its consequences and one more of it being hidded. Only one photo about the removal should suffice. Not sure if this alone is enough to reject the nomination.

Overall: Given the issue with the IMO overuse of fair use images in the article, I will approve if the author removes most of them, because IMHO these is a reason to review the newly acquired good article status. Ppt91 mentioned in GA review that the article is image heavy, which makes a case against the fair use images being a minimal use. Anyway, I prefer ALT1, as it is more accurate. Maybe the word lost should be replaced by destroyed. C messier (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C messier: Hi, indeed during the review process, in the beginning, there were too many images. But at that time we are talking about 6 newspaper images that were all reactions to the removal so they were all the same type of thing. That has been reduced to only 2 most iconic cartoons. The other images, except for maybe the first one, all show different specific events that are handled in the prose of the article, so I believe since they show different events and are not just a gallery of the event, they rationale to have them was accepted. Let me know what you think.20:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu: the use of fair use material should be as minimal as possible, even if that means that some of the events in the article won't have a related photo. The most common reasons for use of non free images are here. The only photo that can fulfill without problem the criteria is one of the sculpture with the now gone pedestral. The article has three of them. The cartoons aren't the main topic of the article, the sculpture is (these particular cartoons aren't even mentioned in the main text). The fair use photos of the statue in Yildiz park don't offer any significant value over the free one. The pile of rubble isn't really adding significant value either, and the same is true about the statue being hidden with samplings. Not sure about the photo showing the people standing on the pedestral. C messier (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C messier: I have adjusted the images:

• I have removed the extra images showing the sculpture in its original state from different angles.
• I have removed the image of the sculpture covered with saplings.
• I've left the image of the pedestal in a state of rubble, and the people standing on the pedestal, because the text refers, now more explicitly, to those images.
• I've left the images of the cartoons, the text refers to the cartoon of Erdoğan Bozok "One of the cartoons represented those that would remove the sculpture as backwards and outdated", the other one I am not sure, perhaps we can remove the other one.
• I've left the image of the sculpture on its side because the image is what initiated further discourse in news that lead to the sculpture being re-erected.
• I've left the image of the sculpture being re-erected as well because the text talks about this event.

Do you agree with the rationale for keeping these remaining images? --Gazozlu (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu: the fair use policy is quite strict as far as the use of unfree media is conserned. The image must add significant value, that can help better understand the article topic. I.e. a photo of the original statue adds significant value, but the reader can understand that a pedestral became a pile of rubble by the reading the text and pretty much knows how a pile of rubble looks. The photo doesn't provide information that would be impossible to get otherwise. The same happens with the photos of it lying on its side and of its re-erection. The reader already knows how the sculpture looks like and so these two photos don't add a significant value that would require the use of unfree media. The brief mentioning of the event they depict in the text isn't enough to justify their use; unfree images must add value/info that would be really difficult to get without them. In short, if the image itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, can remain. In that regard, Erdoğan Bozok's cartoon could remain, but the other should be removed. (as the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable) Similarly, the photo of the people standing on the pedestral apparently hasn't being the subject of sourced discussion (the source in the text, if I understand correctly, is the newspaper front page it self), so it should be removed too. C messier (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C messier: Thanks for the explanation. I've removed the images in accordance with your comments.--Gazozlu (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that ALT1 is 206 characters long. I changed through which he represented with to represent to be within limits. C messier (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for ALT1. C messier (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the word destroyed in place of lost - to ALT1 per the reviewer's recommendation. Bruxton (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C messier: Might also be a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue with the hook. I removed links to fig, a pomegranate, a honeysuckle. Bruxton (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]