Talk:Adana
In this article I found some content that seemed somewhat biased at best, racist at worst, which I've removed. The connections between "modern and western," etc. may mean that this article needs a closer look and perhaps even some copyediting. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I fear part of the new text might read as if NATO were the only reason Turks could ever be educated. Obviously the old text implied a "foreign" education was ipso facto better, but the connection between NATO and "educated Turks" is also problematic. I think it might be best to rewrite from scratch rather than fix what is full of problems... But thank you for drawing our attention to that issue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. I didn’t want to make any drastic changes without consensus, but I think that paragraph probably should be removed altogether.
Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Hobbitschuster that the business about NATO and education should be phrased differently, but I disagree about the rest. It's fine to note when a particular place is more or less Westernized relative to the rest of the country or region it's in - culture shock is not a thing to be taken lightly - and I don't necessarily think the article as originally worded implied a connection between "modern" and "Western", regardless if they were next to each other in the sentence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have stated the concerns more clearly. My concern here (including the entire paragraph) is that the article implies that Adana is an advanced city only due to Western influence. The placement of wording does matter, as this placement of wording implies — indirectly, you could argue — that there's only one reason the city is modern, and that reason allegedly makes it better than the rest of Turkey.
- The reason I'm convinced the intentions of the author are in bad faith here is that an older version of the article said that it was "modern and Western" "despite the location." In other words, implying that somewhere in this region of the world somehow should have low expectations...simply because of its location. While there's clearly inequality between countries, implying that this region of the world is backward ignores the prosperity of many countries and cities throughout Asia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Hobbitschuster that the business about NATO and education should be phrased differently, but I disagree about the rest. It's fine to note when a particular place is more or less Westernized relative to the rest of the country or region it's in - culture shock is not a thing to be taken lightly - and I don't necessarily think the article as originally worded implied a connection between "modern" and "Western", regardless if they were next to each other in the sentence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. I didn’t want to make any drastic changes without consensus, but I think that paragraph probably should be removed altogether.
I propose merging İncirlik into Adana: it's 10 km east with a large NATO air base but nothing else of traveller interest. The discussion above is relevant because Adana nowadays has a surprising concentration of hotels with western standards and pricing. I attribute this to the base and its support industries. Surely it is no disrespect to say that this is way beyond what you'd find in other Turkish towns, simply because they haven't had this windfall investment. Grahamsands (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) - DONE 13/1/23