Talk:List of Turkish football champions

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because we have lots of same page.

Recent edits

Rather than engaging in an edit war, I encourage everyone who has recently made edits to this article to discuss the issues here. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Slight edit for Suat Kaya. he won 8 titles but not in 1988, when he played for Konya. his first title was in 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.239.60 (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Early Turkish Championships

Both former championships (Turkish Football Championship and National Division) were held and organized by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). They are part of the Turkish football history and that of the clubs'.

In all other analogous articles (i.e. List of German champions, List of Albanian champions, List of Greek champions, List of Italian champions, List of Russian champions etc.) the former leagues/tournaments with their respective champions are consistently listed. Some of them are not recognized too, so this can't be a reason to simply delete them as if they never existed. The early Turkish champions have to be listed to adjust the Turkish article with similar articles. Regards Akocsg (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Turkish Football Federation was called Türkiye İdman Cemiyetleri İttifakı back then and organized both championships. Sources: Akocsg (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Still they are not counted as national champinships like it is for Besiktas's 1957 and 1958 Federasyon Kupasi titles.

http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=379

The Turksh football federation has to decided it and not me or you.

In the countries you've listed the national football federations has counted those former leagues, but as i said currently not in Turkey.

1886kusagi (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not deciding anything. I'm just adjusting the article to fit the others. As I already mentioned, see for example List of Greek champions, where the first league/competition is also not counted, but listed in the article. Same goes for some Albanian seasons. Akocsg (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the other countries does not include them and the greek one just list them. The champiionships are not counted at the overall table.

1886kusagi (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Including them and listing them is the same in this case. The National Division and Turkish Football Championship is the equivalent of all other early leagues in similar articles. And they are all listed, if you would check those articles. Akocsg (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Which source count's them? You want to count them, but there is no off. source that those intercity championships are off. nationalwide titles.

As i said even the greek wikipedia article does not count them. They are just listed, but not included at the overallview.

Event the Fenerbahce site does not count them to the turkish national titles. For comparison Cumhurbaskanligi titles are counted as Süper Kupa titles whoch is correct.

http://www.fenerbahce.org/kurumsal/detay.asp?ContentID=23

And still no source that those older tournaments should be combined with the Süper Lig.

1886kusagi (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

At the articles of Atatürk Cup and Chancellor Cup you have added rsssf.com as a source.

The same sites's list:

Turkey - List of Champions for turkish

http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/turkchamp.html

1886kusagi (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Again your own sources contradict yourself. In the official website of Fenerbahçe they are listed:
Türkiye Futbol Şampiyonası:
Şampiyon (3): 1933, 1935, 1944
İkinci (2): 1940, 1947
Milli Küme:
Şampiyon (6): 1936-37, 1939-40, 1942-43, 1944-45, 1945-46, 1949-50
İkinci (2): 1943-44, 1946-47

Of course they are not listed together with Süper Lig, because they are different competitions.

rsssf.com lists only the Super League titles since 1959. In this page (http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/turkhist.html) you can see them hinting at the earlier leagues (before 1959) by referencing to Erdinç Sivritepe. They also have only the first 10 editions of the Istanbul League (1904-1914), all other seasons are missing for example.

They are national championships, not "intercity" titles or something. The clubs winning Turkish Football Championship (the name says all) and National Division titles were officially declared as Turkish football champions (here a picture getting the message across: [1]) The first Super League edition in 1959 also had only Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul teams in it. So please stop distorting facts.

They are not combined with the Super League, and they are indicated as not counted by TFF. Just like in other articles. Here is a summary of the early leagues: [2] Akocsg (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

According to your logic the wins at the Mitropa Cup (Central European Cup) has to listed as List of european champions.

As i said before there is no other country where former tournaments which are currently not off. by the football federation are listed at the generel table or even shown at the "List of champions" site.

In fact you have the same at the danish football.

The titles won at the The Football Tournament are not counted or listed at List of Danish football champions.

1886kusagi (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Argentine football federation later recognized the former tournaments

http://www.afa.com.ar/institucional/campeones-primera-division.php

So, untill the TFF will make the former tournamens official aka recohnize the ttitles, the pre 1959 tournaments shouldn't be listed here.

1886kusagi (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Another example. The Svenska Serien winners become Swedish Champions and therefore are not listed.

Your example with the Mitropa Cup doesn't make any sense. What's the point in that? And the Danish Football Tournament was only for Kopenhagen clubs, the equivalent would be the Istanbul Football League, which isn't listed here. Again your comparison fails.

There is no single valid argument or reason why almost 30 years of history of the national championships shouldn't be listed here, while this article is exactly about them and their respective history. Akocsg (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody says that those former tournaments are not part of the history, but as long as they are not recognised by the TFF they cannot be listed; see the swedish example.

You started to add unofficial titles.

Just another example:

Beşiktaş got their 15th championship title in the history.

http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=471&ftxtID=27259

1886kusagi (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself. See the Greek list as example. And I have already put an indicator that these titles are not counted by the Tff. Akocsg (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Even at the greek one they are not listed at the overall list.

All-time performance (1924–present) and record champion has to be deleted, if you take the greek one as an example.

But as i said the greek is just one example. The other countries lists just include official recognized tournaments. See my example of the swedish champions. Actually you are editing the page by your own fun without taking care the official sources and i don't understand why your contribut should stay.

1886kusagi (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 112#Early Turkish championships

Akocsg (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems ridiculously easy to see that Akocsg is correct with each statement he has made. Koncorde (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This issue was also discussed again here, with the result to keep the former championships. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I am not surprised that Galatasaray fans protest against this, they only won 1 national championship in that period. KirmiziAdam (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I see there are 2 champions in 1940 for instance. How is that even possible.@KirmiziAdam 2A02:A03F:89DA:3500:3951:AFB2:7302:E345 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RSSSF source and editorial integrity

I would like to note the discussion here on Turkish Wikipedia and this post on Ekşi Sözlük. Taken together, there are findings that strongly suggest that the current version of the source by Baki Demirkıran published in the RSSSF and extensively used in the article is an example of citogenesis. Demirkıran has no other published works on Turkish sports history and thus is not a reliable source just on that basis, especially for the controversial issue of what constitutes a Turkish national title, since the RSSSF does not necessarily fact check its contents. The previous edition of the RSSSF list, which includes contributions by reputable sports historians of Turkey (e.g. Sivritepe), does not list the pre-1950s championships. Demirkıran himself seems to have been involved in the featured list nomination of this article (his support for the FLN being his first project-space edit), and he only added this content to the RSSSF after this article was first written, and in a manner that suggests that Wikipedia is the original source.

The other source that is used to support the claim that Fenerbahçe is the most successful club actually reports that this is the Fenerbahçe POV only, so this is a clear manipulation of the source content.

As such, as a Turkish speaker who is not from Turkey and has no general interest in Turkish football, I am very concerned about editorial integrity and a possible POV issue here. There may have been a strong push across various platforms to push a narrative of a TFF denial of certain championships, and the way to deal with this would be probably to get rid of the numbering of championships in the article and remove all references to Demirkıran as a possible instance of citogenesis. This pushed narrative is especially apparent on the article on the Turkish Football Federation, where clearly inappropriate editorialising has been employed ("the club demands to have those official titles rightfully acknowledged", "faced the same unconstructive reaction", "the baseless denial of proper championship titles"). Here, the issue is much more subtle.

I am tagging the article with a POV tag until these concerns can be adequately addressed and a review of the featured list status is probably warranted.

--GGT (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#RSSSF.com RSSSF is a WP:RS for referencing articles. It's a site that is even used by national football associations (for instance by the Danish FA) as a source and data base. It has been reviewed as a reliable source by the users here. It's not possible to simply add made-up or biased content on that site as far as I know. Secondly, all titles and their character (e.g. being national) are sourced and backed by numerous contemporary sources (one of them, a newspaper is placed in the article) and even the TFF itself, which you conveniently ignored here. See the citation from their own website TFF.org: and . You mentioned that you speak Turkish, so there shouldn't be any problem at all for you understanding the text and getting the point.

So based on these sources and evidences, I can't see anything biased or in conflict with neutral POV in any way. The list in question is nothing but based on these facts even mentioned by the Turkish Football Federation itself. By simply ignoring and negating these facts and questioning all of the article just because of one source (RSSSF), seems much more biased to me. Finally, if you are not content with the style of writing in the Turkish Football Federation article, you are welcome to help improve it. This has nothing to do with the status of this list, which can't be simply declared subjective by your own opinion. Akocsg (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is doubting the veracity of the titles mentioned in this list. It is indeed quite easy to confirm the winners of these competitions from a various number of sources, and the RSSSF is indeed sufficient for that. The essence of what we are talking about is something that is entirely different, it is the definition of what counts as a "Turkish national title", and that is what I have my concerns about. The main source for the particular definition employed in this article is the RSSSF, other sources talk about the particular names of the championships but do not unequivocally state that there exists a clear continuity between all of these championships, and that Fenerbahçe is the most successful club. The RSSSF just compiles statistics and is reliable enough for this statistics, but when it comes to a debate such as this, the credentials of who produced that work matter.

Now, here are the facts: Before 2018, the RSSSF website contained material that had been put together with the help of very respectable sports historians, and this material did not include the pre-1956 championships. In 2017, those championships were added here but without any supporting evidence that defined them uncontroversially as "Turkish championships". In 2018, a certain Baki Demirkıran, who has absolutely no other publications regarding Turkish sports history, became an editor of the RSSSF page and edited it to include those pre-1956 titles, in a way that looks very much like it was based on this very Wikipedia article. The RSSSF board would not have had the resources or knowledge to vet these claims, as they are simply a conduit for bona fide individuals wishing to maintain statistics. This same Baki Demirkıran seems to have had an uncanny interest in this very article, given that one of his very few edits -and his first edit in the Wikipedia namespace- was to support the featured list nomination of this article. In tandem with this, some of the material added included manipulation of the Turkish-language sources (e.g. the TRT source above), and some material added elsewhere (the TFF article) clearly indicates a certain POV in these edits. From where I am standing, I think there may have been a coordinated push across various platforms to concoct a history of a certain definition of what counts as a Turkish championships that is not necessarily supported by the reliable sources out there, so this push may have used the bona fide nature of the RSSSF website to use this as an example of citogenesis. I cannot see how you have even begun to address these concerns, and frankly speaking, the involvement of other editors are required here to assess the situation. That is why the POV tag is necessary, to attract this attention, and your removal of the tag is inappropriate, see this guide for when and how to remove it.

--GGT (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, although I really don't understand how you got the impression that the Rsssf board couldn't have such knowledge for the list and claims, since it's quite easy to find other sources publishing information about the former national championships, or how the TRT source is "manipulating" in any way. Speaking of which, TRT has published exactly this list in 2014 (you can see the date in their article). So long before Rsssf implemented it on their own site. You can see this list on their site, it begins right after the following sentence: "1959 yılından önceki başarılar dikkate alınırsa yeni şampiyonluk ve formalardaki yıldız sayısı ise şöyle oluyor:". Then you see the list which we have here on Wiki. It's not based on Fenerbahce POV, since the list is made by themselves and is simply the product of a basic addition of all the national championships combined. After that list, you can see the description of both former national championships, which again only proves the content we have here. The total number is simply the number of titles added up. It's a simple addition and counting, nothing more and nothing less. So please, what about this is manipulative and POV-pushing exactly? It's just common sense and based on the given facts and information. And I highly doubt that Rsssf took anything from Wiki, as you can see that simple list was around a long time ago and is just a matter of fact and the addition of the numbers given. I personally added the Rssf source here since it's one of the quite informative and extensive websites concerning football, among other sources.

The TFF source also speaks for itself, confirming the titles in question being national championship title (I inserted them above). Since the TFF (official federation) and TRT (official state channel) cannot be manipulated, it seems somewhat exaggerated in my eyes to claim such a push across various platforms (or their involvement) as you have put it. Other users are welcome to give their opinions on this matter of course. Akocsg (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Another international source giving the same list: sportchampionships.com. Goal.com giving the same info: They’ve been without a Super Lig title since claiming the league in 2013/14, which feels really long for a side with 19 league titles and 28 all-time championships. Akocsg (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Consensus, the opinions of a significant minority cannot be given as if it is a fact. The opinion of the significant minority is still necessary to include in an article, yet the main body needs to reflect the general consensus. Any action to include the opinion of the significant minority is inappropriate due to WP:NOR. In light of WP:Consensus and WP:NOR, counting the number of titles cumulatively starting from 1924 strictly falls out of wikipedia principles. Turkish Football Federation is the governing organisation of Turkish football league and here is the official title counts by this organisation. However, I am certainly in favour of including a separate Title Count Dispute section in the article as well. Claiming that this is just a basic addition of titles from 1924, or stating that other leagues included the titles in this way are not excuses as the information provided by the official body of Turkish football directly contradicts with what is given on this page. Per WP:Consensus, the majority opinion should be given as clearly as possible, and any disputing opinion should be included as secondary information.

Possible ways to improve this article are as follows:

• Remove the de facto and de jure expressions. Include a footnote to explain that Fenerbahce disputes the number of titles.
• Count each organisation separately. It is possible to start Besiktas from either 3 or 1 for the 1959 onwards section. Whatever the preferred choice, a footnote is necessary.
• Include a section about the dispute by Fenerbahce. This might include the two titles of Besiktas as well as how it is handled by The Football Association. This section also needs to explain the origin of the dispute, i.e., when and why Fenerbahce started disputing the number of titles.

I don't really want to be a part of a long discuss, but not only this is against every available wiki policy, but also this warrants a possible WP:WAR. If necessary, I will also ask for admin interference directly.

Cheers, 131.111.5.154 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Since no one responded neither to my comments nor to my suggestions, I will start carrying out the changes I described shortly.

I will first prepare a Controversy section, which includes information about how Besiktas received the extra two star-only-use titles and how Fenerbahce challenges the title count. Depending on the discussions, I will add up each era individually, so that the title count will reflect the TFF given statistics. Then, after we carry out the relevant discussions in the talk page, I will remove de facto and de jure champions. After these changes, the article will comply with all wiki standards without withholding any important information from visitors.

Cheers, 131.111.5.154 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@131.111.5.154: I would advise you to not change the current state of the article. There is currently an investigation case at the Turkish Football Federation about the former national championships. Once that case is finished, we will also have a final verdict concerning these titles. On top of that, it's not only the club of Fenerbahçe that wants its titles acknowledged but several other clubs too. Such as Ankaragücü, Ankara Demirspor, Gençlerbirliği, Eskişehir Demirspor, Göztepe etc. who all won national championships before 1957. Akocsg (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@131.111.5.154: Your proposed changes seem reasonable. The fact that there is an investigation going on means there is nothing official yet, so this is still a dispute. When things become official, there will be more than a few people willing to come and edit the article to reflect the official sources. The edits you mention will prevent this page from being used as a tool to manage the expectations of the football community in Turkey. Thanks for being objective and considerate of the facts. Futbolistaturco (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1924 Türkiye şampiyonu Harbiye takımı.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

This page does not reflect official facts as it is supposed to be. It advocates Fenerbahçe propaganda based on made-up stories. Turkey did not have any official national league before 1959. The current league was played with a consensus for decades. While both Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe had 19 titles at the start of the 2014-15 season, both clubs used a motto for the 4th star (which is given for the 20th title) target. Once Fenerbahçe lagged several titles behind Galatasaray, they made up this story. It is not recognized by UEFA and TFF. Curukalp (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

While the TFF does not recognise pre-1959 championships, sources state that a 2002 TFF Arbitration Court decision requires these championships to be counted. Discussion above hasn't been able to come to consensus regarding how to present the numbers. I personally have no opinion on this matter, just collecting information for ease of discussion. Liu1126 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)