Talk:Cem Özdemir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turkish descent????[edit]

Its irrelevant to claim Turkish descent just because his father carries Turkish passport. He is a Circassian and tells this without hesitation. If this doesnt mean anything, then brand singer Shakira as a Turkish descent(from Lebanon), brand all the Armenian, Greek diaspora same way. I would like to see face of Elia Kazan if smb told him this(although he probably had some Turkic ancestors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.49.247 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:MOSBIO I am removing Turkish decent from the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of his parents are Turkish (in the sense that they came from Turkey and had Turkish citizenship), his name and surname are Turkish, and he speaks Turkish. So, it would be fair to say he has Turkish descent. That aside, a large number of Turks (not surprisingly) have a variety of descents: Albanian, Azeri, Bosnian, Circassian, Turkmen, various other Turkic ethnicities, as well as Arab, Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.3 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German Obama LOL!!![edit]

Thank you, this definitly made my day!!! Just too funny! --88.73.18.90 (talk)

Is he really Muslim?[edit]

I am not so sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.39.56 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need to label someone a Muslim or Islam , seriously who gives a shit if David Beckhams a christian or not?

In German politics, religion can be important. The main party supporting the government is even called "Christian Democratic Union". Some people pay attention if a minister will refer to god in their oath, or if they skip that part, which is also possible. All in all it's not the same as with a sportsperson. By the way, I do think Mr Özdemir identifies as a Muslim. --Aecur (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
read the German page. He refers to himself as "sekulärer Muslim" = "secular muslim". This should answer your question. --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Religion is immaterial in the primarily secular nation, however, identifying as something other than Christian or atheist might draw out xenophobia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy potential resource[edit]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,45#thinker77 excerpt ...

Reading list: The Prague Cemetery, by Umberto Eco; The Marriage Plot, by Jeffrey Eugenides; The Third Industrial Revolution, by Jeremy Rifkin. "Best idea": A political union toward the United States of Europe. "Worst idea": Throwing Greeks out of the eurozone or getting back the deutsche mark for Germany.

"Polls this fall showed that one in five voters supports the Greens, making it the country's main opposition party." 99.181.130.83 (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this context removed?[edit]

In 2010, Renate Künast, Cécile Duflot, Monica Frassoni, and Marina Silva were named to the Foreign Policy list<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,30</ref> for taking [[Green politics|Green]] mainstream.

141.218.36.41 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained in the edit that removed it: "So-called "context" is irrelevant to this article." . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved </nowiki> to where is seem to have use. OK , WG? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I intended. But it's not worth arguing over. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"German Muslim"[edit]

I am not sure what a "secular Muslim" is supposed to be. This may be one of the cases where the adjective negates the noun, just like an "abdicated king" or a "retired boxer", or an "unsuccessful candidate", means that the individual is not a king, or boxer, or candidate, any longer but sort of retains certain characteristics of king, or boxer, or candidate, because he spent time being one. Except that "secular Muslim" may mean that he never was a Muslim to begin with, just that his ancestors were and he feels vaguely loyal towards them. Surely this insn't enough to justify the category "German Muslims"? --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A secular Muslim generally means that they believe in separation of church and state. You linked to the article, Islam and secularism, and it's explained very clearly in the first few paragraphs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Islam[edit]

This interesting RfC turns on how to describe Herr Özdemir's religion in the article's infobox. During the course of the discussion, editors have ranged far beyond the original question into matters of Wikipedia policy and the question of whether it's possible to be a secular Muslim at all. I think the clearest way to close this is to divide the RfC's findings into a series of questions:-

Q: Is it possible to be a secular Muslim?
A: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, yes. On Wikipedia, if we describe someone's religion in a biographical article, then we rely on their self-described religion.

Q: Do we have a reliable source to say that Cem Özdemir is a secular Muslim?
A: Yes.

Q: Should we list Cem Özdemir's religion as "Secular Islam" in the article?
A: Yes.

Q: Should we list Cem Özdemir's religion as "Secular Islam" in the infobox?
A: No. Herr Özdemir is important as a political thinker but he's not important as a religious thinker, so listing his religion in the infobox creates issues of undue weight.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has listed [[Islam and secularism|Secular Islam]] for quite a while. It links to Islam and secularism. I understand that some Muslims do not believe in non-practising or secular versions of their faith, but Wikipedia is not a political or religious document. We rely on verifiable information from reliable source and we have a reference that clearly states, "Özdemir is a self-described secular Muslim" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/letter-from-berlin-a-turk-at-the-top-a-584300.html) so I'm not sure what the issue is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you didn't respond to my question yet! Show me an example like Secular Christian, Secular Jewish or "Secular Buddhist" in the person's boxes. There are many sects in Islam. Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Ahmadiyya.. but not secular islam. Wikipedia is full of examples in this regard. Hassan Rouhani, Anwar Sadat, Faisal of Saudi Arabia.. more. Being secular or moderate muslim, Özdemir's own personal opinion. As I said in summary, there is no called Sucalar religion or sect in Islam. Also, part of the above comments: "I understand that some Muslims do not believe in non-practising or secular versions of their faith"... I think, there is prejudice and humiliation in this section. Maurice Flesier (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is immaterial which is why I did not respond to it, but I'll show you a self-identified Secular Muslim: Cem Özdemir. The reference to support that statement is above. So I'm sorry he made the statement to the offence of your faith, but he made it. If you do not self-revert, I will have to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but still doesn't seem a satisfactory explanation. You didn't answer my question, because does not have any similar example. At least, i have not seen until now in Wikipedia. If a directive or policy regarding this issue, you can share please. As I see it, this seems already disputed with comments and edits in the history. Then we will add concept of secularism non devout people's infoboxes?? It's purely a political fact and this definition is unacceptable and irrational for the religion section.Maurice Flesier (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it to you two ways.
  1. There is a reliable source to support the statement. It clearly stands. Do you you disagree with the statement or can you not see that it is sourced?
  2. Your question is immaterial. You're asking me to offer you proof of something that has no bearing on the statement supported by a reliable source. I do not have to show you what you are looking for because it does not change the reliably sourced statement made by the subject.
In short: self-revert because, while your logic may be correct in some instances, it does not hold for this subject who considers himself a secular Muslim.
As for a "directive or policy": WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason that it has no bearing is that Christianity, unlike Islam, does not hold as one of its main tenants that the state must be a theocracy. That means that most Christians, especially those outside of Europe, believe in separation of Church and State: secular Christianity by definition. So no offence, but if you understood the religion a bit better you'd see how absolutely off-base your question actually is.
And of course, immaterial to the question as to whether Özdemir stated that he was a secular Muslim or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't deny source or Özdemir's opinion but, i do not think that such a definition is correct for religion section. If there is a similar example, we should keep it here. I suggest two options:
  • In religion section, with the requirement to stay only Islam, we specify this opinion under the title "Life and work" with Spiegel's reference.
  • Religion section leaving blank, any statement may not take place regarding beliefs on the article and box.
To specify whether conservative, not need this bad redirect. Maurice Flesier (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no requirement to say Islam or anything else. Christian politicians do not use that designation, they self-identify with a specific denomination or sub-group and so that is what I am applying here as well. You clearly do not get it and feel you have to protect Islam. That's not a valid role for an encyclopedia, where we are supposed to reflect the sourced statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An example of fait accompli and WP:JDL. This definition is not used of biographies of Muslim people. Not any concrete exmp for müslim, christian or jews people..You should stop practicing the policy by oneself and commanding role. The existence of the source, this definition and funny redirect does not require. Maurice Flesier (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's an example of having a reliable source. You should stop making up your own rules. There is no redirect. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia, but I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a case of you wanting it to be something because you don't like the alternative. I have requested that the article be locked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you an offer, you refused. This is purely a personal effort to impose and WP:OWN. That designation unacceptable for infobox. Thank you for protection, Görlitz. Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I need to take your offer when I have a reliable source? There is no ownership here, simply obeying the five pillars. Sorry you would rather edit war than be a Wikipedian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because, current expression is not used of persons belonging to Islam. If have, u share with me, please. It's not a sub-sect of Islam or interpretation. He describes it himself. As I mentioned above,u can specify in the article the definition of "secular Islam". I am not against it. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever taken classical logic?
Your statement that "it is not an expression used of persons belonging to Islam" is proven incorrect here. The subject used it to refer to himself. That means that either 1) the subject is not a person (the law of non contradiction would argue against that) 2) the subject does not "belong to Islam" or 3) you lied when making that statement.
The subject has made the statement and the source has been shared with you here and in the article. No one states that it is a sect of Islam, but it is his clearly preferred way of identifying with the religion.
There is no need to define secular Islam in this article because there is an article that already does it. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to link to the article so that the reader can determine what the term means. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion. Am I to assume you're looking for sources to support "Islam"? I just saw a news footage from Iraq where ISIS mercenaries asked if a captive supported an Islamic state or not. He was shot for giving the wrong answer. It appears that this is what Cem Özdemir opposes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again a fait accompli. I'm tired of writing the same argumants. There is no basis your opinion and another example on wikipedia. Next edit war, I'll take to WP:DRR – Maurice Flesier (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source your version. Take it wherever you want. You have opinion and I have a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of sources,, it does not justify ridiculous redirect. Stop trying to impose your personal hermeneutics. Maurice Flesier (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither ridiculous nor a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the issue[edit]

As you can see above, there is no such religion as "secular Islam" yet the subject has labelled himself as one. The main opposition is that by definition, Islam is a theocracy and the idea that there could be such a thing as "secular Islam" is offensive to many of that faith. My question is, should the infobox display

  1. Islam and link to that religion?
  2. Secular Islam and link to Islam?
  3. Secular Islam and link to that article?
  4. Something else?

I believe the sources support option 3 and it was a different editor who added that but several editors don't like that option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3. A very clear case, IMHO. The subject, a German polititian, described himself as a secular Muslim in order to indicate that he believes in the separation of church and state and that he has a more relaxed and moderate attitude towards religion, obviously to distinguish his form of belief from any traditionalists' or fundamentalists' views. If "secular Islam" exists as a religion "as is" or is a description of a certain interpretation is irrelevant, because per WP:BLP we have to respect the subject's self-declaration. Anything else would be interpretation from our side. Also, per WP:RS the statement is well-sourced from a high-regarded magazine. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secular Islam" not appropriate for describing someone's religion, just look around whole wikipedia and point some pages where it has been used? The source that was added by @Matthiaspaul: was misused for describing his religion, WP:SYNTH. Whole article had no word like "Secular Islam". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If problem persists, you may consider removing the 'religion' from infobox. Wouldn't be a minus because details have been mentioned on 2nd section. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You realize that "Islam" is the name of the religion while "Muslim" is the name of its devotees. At the time of your edit, the article clearly stated, "Özdemir is a secular Muslim<ref name="Spiegel_2008">''[[Spiegel online]]'', 15. October 2008: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584300,00.html A Turk at the Top].</ref>", so your point that "Whole article had no word like 'Secular Islam'" is incorrect. As for the idea that we should "just look around whole wikipedia and point some pages where it has been used". Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay not a guideline. When you add "Secular Islam" the source has to explicitly state such. So far it is not doing so. Are you sure that there are no sources for stating "Islam" either? If so, you agree with the removal of "religion" from infobox? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essay makes a point though. Do you understand the point or should I re-post the essay here to show how your argument is weak?
I'm not sure what your point about explicitly stating "secular Islam" in the article is about. It's just plain wrong based on grammatical grounds.
Removal of the parameter may be a BLP issue as well and I won't offer support for or against its removal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, source must state something like "Ozdemir's religion is secular Islam", or else it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "Özdemir is a self-described secular Muslim". This once again leads me to either believe that you have not read the referenced article or are arguing your point from a grammatical and semantic ground, which is invalid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the self identification. If he says he is a secular Muslim, that is what we report in the infobox. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: State "Muslim" in infobox? Or "Secular Muslim", I am alright with both, but you can inform any 1 of them. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Secular Islam or Secular Muslim as per the self-identification presented in that source. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be better to simply put in Islam in the infobox. He is a Muslim. Islam is simple and clear. Islam and not Muslim. Islam being a religion and Muslims being adherents of that religion. I think your source is strong enough to mention in the article that he is self described ect ect, but I'm sure if it's strong enough to do so in the infobox. I'm wondering if adding it to the infobox with out the self described aspect might be synth. I'm wondering if also adds undue weight. It actually is unclear what secular Islam implies.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serialjoepsycho Gramatically either an identification of the religion (like 'Christianity') or a categorization, relating to religion, of the person (like 'Christian' or 'atheist') is acceptable in an infobox. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secular Muslim, link to Islam I guess. I was just invited by the RfC bot and have no knowledge of Ozdemir, but it looks well-sourced by der Spiegel. That said, all of the suggestions provided, including removal, are acceptable by Wikipedia policies and the infobox shouldn't be changed from the status quo ante if there's consensus for the change. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the summary correctly, it seems that including the word "secular" is not against the source or the incorrect use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo[edit]

User:Frank W. Matisse has replaced the previous photo for the third time ([1], [2], [3]) without responding to my attempt to contact him and raise a discussion ([4]). I think, the photo introduced by him shows the subject in a very disadvantageous way (dark shadows under nose and elsewhere, emphasized nose line, viewpoint from below) compared to the previously used portait photo ([5]). Since a better photo is available (in the older one) and this article is about a living person, we have to take extra care with the contents used here per WP:BLP. Since Frank also replaced the photos in many other articles and did not respond to my comment, I don't know what he is up to. In either case, from a photographer's point of view, I find his photo unsuitable for the article. The previous photo isn't perfect, but at least it does not show the subject in an unfavourable way. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored photo again as Frank did not respond. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cem Özdemir. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cem Özdemir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cem_Özdemir&oldid=1207900216"