Talk:Nury Turkel

@Barkeep49: Hello! Mr. Turkel is one of the nine commissioners on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. I would like to ask, at this point, what criteria has Mr. Turkel's page failed to meet? I will see if I can find the relevant sources that would show notability. I know he has a biography at the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom page. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, that service seems to be the only difference between when this was deleted and now. It was enough that rather than taking it back to AfD I marked it as reviewed. However, that commission is not, to my knowledge, something which conveys notability under any notability guideline - the applicable ones here being WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Hence the tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: I added some more sources- am I reaching the threshold? Also, I am having trouble finding his official, legal Chinese character name from when he was a Chinese citizen, so I ask for patience on that front. There does seem to be literature about Mr. Turkel in Mandarin Chinese media sources. Names I have found so far: 努尔﹒图凯勒 / 特克爾 / 图凯尔 Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, here's the problem from 2018. Turkel is quoted in the media a fair amount and is even published in the media a fair amount. However, he's not actually profiled/written about by reliable independent secondary sources. Like the best profile I found last time was from his own law firm which is obviously not RS. Do you have any reliable independent secondary sources discussing him as a topic rather than merely quoting him about something else? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: I haven't looked through everything yet, but here are some independent sources: I have started to add these into the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I plan to focus on Mandarin Chinese sources about him tomorrow. Unfortunately, I can't read Uyghur, but I will try for that too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, so you're running into some of the same issues as before. I only have access to a snippet of AFR but that's the most promising of the bunch. The second source is a speaker's bio, the third one is again a self provided bio for Congress, and the last is an interview (which is not considered independent). Turkel is good at promotion and appearing places but that alone does not convey notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: Here is a link to an archive with the full article, comrade haha jk You should be able to see the full article with this-- Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, that article is definitely helpful towards establishing notability. If there was another article (or even better two) like that I'd have no questions about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: Hello again! Here's a source on Turkel from the Office of General Counsel in the US DoD that describes Turkel's life in a great deal of detail: Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, that would be a WP:primary rather than secondary source. Reliable primary sources can be useful for verifying some information but are not generally as useful for establishing notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: (See comment immediately after this one) "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."..."Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."
provides an author's own thinking: "After a thorough review of the record, including Applicant’s testimony, all exhibits, all relevant policies, and the applicable adjudicative guideline, I make the following findings of fact"
based on primary sources: "The Government called no witnesses and introduced two exhibits (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2), which were entered in the record without objection."..."Applicant timely submitted six additional documents, which I marked as Ex. F through Ex. K and entered in the record without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 17, 2012."..."I take administrative notice of the following facts, which appear in official U.S. government documents, and which were summarized in documents provided to Applicant and to me:"..."Another medical professional with whom Applicant worked"..."Applicant’s program manager praised Applicant"..."In May 2011, Applicant’s managers made the following recommendations"
Your position seems to be that this is a primary account of the life of Turkel instead of a synthesized source about the life of Turkel. I contend that this document includes a secondary and interpretative component synthesized by Judge Anthony concerning the various facts about Mr. Turkel. I see the decision itself as primary (like "those experiences" mentioned in the above sentence), whereas the synthesis of testimony and exhibits (both from the government and Turkel) into a biographical outline of Turkel is secondary (like the component of the military historian's book about the war is secondary). For instance, Judge Anthony says that the information about Turkel's college studies and folk dancing (page 3) is based on a synthesis of Exhibit 1 (provided by the government) and the hearing transcript. A primary source on the subject would be a photo of his college degrees, not a synthesized report by a judge a decade or two after the events occurred.
In conclusion, in the document provided, we indeed are not one step removed from the event of the decision that was reached. The document is primary to that decision. However, we are a step removed from the content synthesized based on the various exhibits and testimony presented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC) (modified) (clicked publish accidentally)Reply

I have removed the source; I conflated aspects of Turkel's life with that of the applicant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative:&@Barkeep49:, Hello, I have some sources which related to Mr. Turkel, here are three of them (Turkel-1), (Turkel-2),(Turkel-3) which talk about Turkel's life, especially the second part of the first article by Uyghur Academy, hope can help. But these article are in Uyghur language, we can use google translater to verify the information, glad to hear from you, thanks.--KH561 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: Hey! Am I getting any closer to Wikipedia notability here? I feel like I'm slowly circling in on it, but I'm not sure. Are there other cases like this that are on the edge that I can learn from? I'm still looking for that 'slam dunk' second indpendent analysis of him. Please keep in mind that we know relatively little about Xinjiang/East Turkistan on Wikipedia, and this person is getting all kinds of coverage and a government commissionership. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Geographyinitiative, if you feel that you've addressed the tag feel free to remove it. I will not object though I admit to just being too plum tired to really dive too deep into this issue at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Barkeep49 I've made a lot of mistakes here, but also some progress. I don't want to go too fast, but I do think that I am in notability terriotry, or if not, I'm inching closer to a better and better case for notability. I'm going to remove the header for now, but I recognize that this may be considered premature and may need to be restored. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Wiiformii @AgisdeSparte The content been updated is from the original referenced source, stop vandalizing the content.

But according to the article, there is simply no basis to support allegations that the board member engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct (link) WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

it's an allegation Wiiformii (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wiiformii Yes, but it's part of the original article, so why it can't be here. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What basis even is there? The part you added gives undue weight, see Wikipedia:Undue Wiiformii (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. This is just an accusation, and the current status of the investigation can't be considered Undue weight because this content can't be considered minority views as it came directly from the investigation conducted by the law firm Isler Dare. Please read the article first. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Law firms obviously will defend the accused, although the accusation may be wrong or right it still is not a neutral source and you added your own analysis into the article. Wiiformii (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is your personal POV. Please use the exact words from the original sources. Thanks. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Wiiformii. The edit here pulls a quote from the RFA article about another article which is quoting lawyers. You can't just drop the quotes and attribution like that, especially when the RFA article itself then immediately mentions the discrepancy between the group's initial denials of Turkel's harassment and its statement on Friday. We don't have a independent reliable source saying that there is simply no basis to support allegations. This is directly from the lawyers involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have edited it with exact words from the existing referenced source, but still get reverted. Please edit not revert. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WikiValidator01: You need to build consensus here, not just edit war your preferred version over multiple editors who have contested it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov WP:NPOV .You are deleting a lot of other content. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WikiValidator01: You've continued to revert your preferred version over 3 other editors, added vague language like Turkel reportedly resigned from his position as chair in May 2024 when the resignation is clearly reported in this RFA news article and the UHRP itself, and removed mentions of the reason given by those same sources.
You're also editing with the word "we" (as in this edit summary). Are you representing multiple people or an organization? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MarkH21 Thank you for your comments. Initially, I did some revert/undo because you and other editors were taking that action, no matter how I edited it. But I don't want to create an edit war, so I have asked for help from other more experienced wiki editors, and the current edit is the result of that. No, I don't represent any org. I represent only myself. I read those sources for reference and didn't see any direct accusation. The original edit used misleading words like "multiple," which doesn't exist in the source and was structured in a very confusing way. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have asked for help from other more experienced wiki editors, and the current edit is the result of that. What? The edits have been entirely done by you, against three other editors who disagree with you.

The RFA article literally says amid sexual harassment claims and accused of harassing women at the 2019 and 2022 editions of Oslo Freedom Forum, and separately of making a “sexual advance” following a work meeting in 2021. That's multiple. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the Wikipedia need quality not only quantity, but thanks for your comment. WikiValidator01 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page has recently had some edits by a user whose only edits have been solely related to the article subject matter, Nury Turkel (primarily to this page, once on the article for one of Turkel‘s books, and once to add Turkel to a list of his university alumni).

I should note that the talk template indicates that the eponymous account NuryTurkel was previously been flagged for editing with a close relationship to this page (presumably being the article subject).

COI editing is quite discouraged, and must not be done without a disclosed relationship. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@OrbisLex as you are now veering towards edit warring, it puts a fine point on the COI issue I have sought to raise diplomatically. Please disclose your connection to the article subject. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have no conflict of interest or relationship with the article subject that requires disclosure under WP:COI.

The issue I have raised here is a sourcing issue. I checked the replacement Sautman citation and found that its supporting note (n. 195) relies on the same RFA article discussed above. I would prefer to keep the discussion focused on whether this contentious BLP material satisfies WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS.

I agree that we should avoid edit warring. If we cannot resolve the sourcing question here, I am happy to seek input from uninvolved editors at WP:BLPN. OrbisLex (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

How is it that your sole interest on Wikipedia relates to Mr. Turkel? An assertion of no COI, particular given Mr. Turkel’s past non-pseudonymous editing of this page, makes it hard to credit this statement. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have answered your COI question. I am not Mr. Turkel and I have no relationship with him that requires disclosure under WP:COI. Please do not continue speculating about my identity or affiliations. I have not speculated about yours, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

The substantive issue remains straightforward: the replacement Sautman citation relies, in note 195, on the same RFA article whose subsequent editorial treatment is discussed above. If we disagree about whether that satisfies WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS, the appropriate course is to seek input from uninvolved editors at WP:BLPN. I am happy to do that. OrbisLex (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

With no further comment here from other editors, but with the pattern of edits continuing, I have made a topic here to address the COI risk on the notice board: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Nury_Turkel JArthur1984 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the opportunity for uninvolved editors to review this matter.

I want to begin by clarifying that this question was already raised and answered on October 5. When JArthur1984 asked me to disclose my connection to the subject of this biography, I stated explicitly that I had no conflict of interest or relationship requiring disclosure under WP:COI. When he subsequently questioned the credibility of that answer, I reiterated that I am not Mr. Turkel and have no relationship with him requiring disclosure. Those statements remain accurate.

JArthur1984 subsequently referred the matter to this noticeboard on October 30, citing my editing history and the continuation of the dispute. I recognize that a concentrated editing history can reasonably prompt questions. But it does not, by itself, establish that an editor is misrepresenting his identity or concealing a relationship.

I have answered the question directly and consistently. If there is specific evidence contradicting those statements, I ask that it be presented for independent evaluation. Otherwise, I respectfully request that speculation about my identity not displace the substantive sourcing and BLP concerns I have raised.

My involvement stems from concerns about the treatment of contentious allegations in this biography and the repeated disputes surrounding them over the past several years. Having examined the available reporting, investigation findings, and subsequent corrective information, I believe there are serious questions about whether the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living people.

My October 5 comments identified specific sourcing problems, not merely a disagreement over editorial preferences. Barry Sautman’s book cites a Radio Free Asia article that was subsequently withdrawn after the underlying UHRP statement was retracted, as well as UHRP material whose original links are no longer active. Those citations also do not account for UHRP’s subsequent public corrective statement, distributed through its mailing list in December 2024, or its commendation letter acknowledging Turkel’s years of service. UHRP expressly clarified that its earlier announcement had been removed because it may have caused misunderstandings about the reasons for his departure.

The concern is whether material relying on withdrawn or subsequently corrected reporting can fairly support contentious allegations about a living person without acknowledging the corrections. The fact that those references appear in a published book does not, by itself, resolve the underlying sourcing concerns. I recognize that separately published reporting must be evaluated on its own merits; my objection here concerns the particular sources and claims identified in my October 5 comments.

These objections also raise broader questions about the presentation of allegations that UHRP’s investigation did not substantiate and the omission of subsequent corrective information.

I have not questioned JArthur1984’s motives or suggested that his continued support for retaining the disputed material establishes a conflict of interest on his part. I have addressed the content and its supporting evidence, not speculated about another editor’s identity or intentions. I believe the same standard should apply here.

A COI inquiry and a BLP dispute are separate questions. Both editors’ positions should be assessed under the same requirements of reliable sourcing, neutrality, due weight, and WP:BLP. Even a substantiated COI would not resolve whether the disputed material complies with Wikipedia’s policies. Conversely, challenging contentious material does not, by itself, establish a COI.

I support an uninvolved review of both questions and ask that the substantive evidence not be displaced by speculation about an editor’s identity or motivations.

Finally, I believe that editing biographies of living people carries responsibilities beyond the mechanics of sourcing and editorial disagreements. Fairness, accuracy, and reasonable care are especially important when serious allegations about a living person are involved. The consequences of misleading or incomplete information can be lasting, particularly when an investigation did not substantiate the allegations and subsequent corrective information is available.

Whether misleading impressions arise intentionally or inadvertently, editors should make reasonable efforts to correct them. This is not about shielding anyone from legitimate criticism. It is about ensuring that criticism is presented accurately, proportionately, and with appropriate context.

Wikipedia’s words have consequences beyond Wikipedia. Getting the facts right should matter more than winning an editing dispute. OrbisLex (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@MarkH21 and JArthur1984: Per your note about edit-warring, I'm bringing this here for discussion rather than reverting, and I won't edit the paragraph until there's consensus.

Summary: The paragraph alleging sexual misconduct by Turkel relies on Radio Free Asia reporting that RFA itself has since retracted (May 2024) and corrected (July 2024). It cites a pre-correction archived copy, omits the retraction entirely, and is arranged to imply that misconduct caused his resignation, a conclusion none of its cited sources now supports. Under WP:BLP, it should be removed.

1. The original announcement has been retracted

The paragraph's account of his resignation traces back to UHRP's May 2024 announcement. That announcement has been withdrawn. RFA removed its 20 May 2024 article based on it, with an editor's note: "the original statement on which it was based has been retracted." https://www.rfa.org/english/uyghur/2024/12/05/nury-turkel-resignation-rights-group/

2. The remaining citations rely on corrected reporting

1. RFA, 15 July 2024: updated on 19 December 2024 "to remove dated reference regarding the resignation of Uyghur Human Rights Project's board chair." Our article cites an archived copy from before that correction. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/sexual-harassment-allegations-backlash-07152024144734.html
2. Sautman (2026), p. 141: its note (n. 195) cites that same July RFA article, so it adds no independent sourcing.

When a publisher corrects its own reporting, citing the uncorrected archived version to keep contentious claims about a living person is not consistent with WP:BLP's requirement for high-quality sourcing.

In July 2024, the paragraph was defended because it was "clearly reported in this RFA news article and the UHRP itself." RFA has since retracted one article and corrected the other, and UHRP has withdrawn its announcement. UHRP cannot be treated as authoritative when it made the announcement and disregarded when it withdrew it.

3. The paragraph omits the retraction (WP:NPOV)

Readers are shown the allegations but not that the original announcement was withdrawn and the related reporting retracted and corrected. Presenting that material without disclosing those developments gives readers a materially false picture. That defect is not a matter of wording; it goes to whether the material belongs in the biography at all.

4. Its structure implies misconduct its own sources don't support (WP:SYNTH)

The paragraph lists the allegations, then the investigation, then ends with the resignation. An ordinary reader will conclude that misconduct occurred and caused him to leave. None of the cited sources now says so: RFA retracted the article that connected them and removed the resignation reference from the other. Arranging material to imply a conclusion the cited sources don't state is synthesis, and in a BLP it is especially serious.

5. The burden is on inclusion (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPRESTORE)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. I raised these sourcing concerns on 5 October (#Use of removed RFA article as BLP source) and have not seen a policy-based answer.

6. Weight and the purpose of BLP

A brief burst of 2024 coverage occupies a prominent place in a biography covering decades of work (WP:UNDUE). Contemporaneous reporting stated that the investigation did not substantiate the allegations, and the reporting linking them to his resignation has since been retracted and corrected. BLP requires that biographies be written conservatively and that the possibility of harm to living subjects always be considered.

BLP is explicit that Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not be "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Keeping allegations the investigation did not substantiate, framed by a resignation link its own sources have retracted, does exactly that. See also WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL.

Proposal: Remove the paragraph and its citations in full. Rewording cannot cure retracted sourcing or an implication built into the material itself. Any partial retention, however phrased, would still repeat allegations the investigation did not substantiate, which is precisely the tabloid-style amplification BLP exists to prevent.

Going forward: After removal, the material should not be restored without clear consensus, per WP:BLPRESTORE, and the outcome should be recorded at the top of this talk page. If there is no agreement here, I'll seek independent review at WP:BLPN. OrbisLex (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply