Jump to content

Talk:2016 Turkish coup attempt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Infobox Turkish flag

I have re-added the flag of Turkey so it covers both sides, as far as we know both sides at the height of the coup claimed to be in charge of the Turkish government. Not having a flag next to "Peace at Home Council" implies that they are from out of the country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Having flags, nevermind identical flags, for this is nothing short of grotesque. I think it would be in the spirit of MOS:FLAG to just remove them; even if they are normally included in "conflict" infoboxes, a coup is not quite a typical military conflict, and the situation where the same flag would represent both belligerents is also far from typical. Hence, the principle of caution spelled out in MOS:FLAG should be followed and the use of flags avoided. LjL (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree as you cant call this a civil conflict with the military involved on both sides. As for MOS:FLAG looking at FA articles involving conflicts I do not see the flags removed on a majority of articles. In short, it doesn't appear to be a big deal. [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I also disagree. Plenty of articles on coups d'état, both attempted and successful, use identical flags. Examples: 2010 Nigerien coup d'état, 2012 Malian coup d'état, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, 2004 Haitian coup d'état, and others. -- GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Counter-coup" - any RS?

Do we have any WP:RS for terming "The Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey (HSYK) removed 2,745 Turkish judges from duty following the attempted coup;[69] 541 of these judges were in administrative judiciary and 2,204 were in criminal judiciary. This amounted to approximately 36% of all judges in Turkey at the time.[70] 5 members of the HSYK had their membership revoked and 10 members of the Turkish Council of State were arrested on charges of being members of the parallel state.[71] Furthermore, arrest warrants were issued for 48 members of the Council of State and 140 members of the Court of Cassation." as a "counter-coup"? So far this is just my common sense interpretation as a Wikipedian, i.e. not a RS - I would be surprised if the Turkish constitution allows a sudden decision by an unstated authority (Erdogan?) to dismiss 36% of the judiciary within hours of a sudden emergency - a state of emergency normally allows some temporary suspension of some human rights, but not a huge sudden modification of the executive-judiciary-legislative balance. Boud (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it remains an open question as to whether we are watching a counter-coup, or the organized response to a planned fake coup. The current delta between the English and Turkish language versions of this article is indicative of a wag-the-dog effort by at least one group. Any time you see thousands of judges arrested hours after the conclusion of a failed coup attempt, it's a pretty clear indicator that those in control are taking action before a reasonable amount of investigation could have plausibly been conducted. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, we do. Notably the New York Times editorial board referred to the purges as a "counter-coup" (search the article for "counter-coup"), with many more analysts and newspapers joining in. --PanchoS (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Judges jailed in Turkey

May I suggest, that a new article is created on this subject, based on this [2]. There are some initiatives in Denmark and Norway from the union of judges, that want to support that this is not neglected. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.120.10 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we could push off a large section of this article to that. A great deal of this is turning into events, reactions and analysis post the coup itself. Hollth (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I'm not a fan of the recent revamping. First of, the opening paragraph does not say against whom and whose government the coup was attempted. The sentence "But the remaining loyal Turkish Armed Forces were able to defend the incumbent government promptly and swiftly" is not especially neutral. The second paragraph jumps to conspiracy theories in violation of WP:UNDUE. The previous lead seems better, more or less, at least for the time being. Brandmeistertalk 10:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm.. is your native language not English? Most of your concerns seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what is actually being expressed in the text. Here are the explanations.

the opening paragraph does not say against whom and whose government the coup was attempted

It was a coup. By definition a coup is done against the incumbent government. If you want to be more specific then we would have to say that it was against a government controlled by the AKP. But those kind of details are too intrinsic for a lead.

The sentence "But the remaining loyal Turkish Armed Forces were able to defend the incumbent government promptly and swiftly" is not especially neutral.

How is it not neutral? In a coup you have two belligerent parties: the incumbent government and the perpetrators. The incumbent party defended themselves successfully against the attack. Not only that, but they did it quite rapidly and efficiently (hence, the terms "promptly," meaning that they reacted with little or no delay, and "swiftly," meaning that after they reacted they foiled the attempt quickly).

The second paragraph jumps to conspiracy theories

Again, this is not what is expressed in the text. The text simply states, "there are opposing views, here's what they are. View #1 says that it was Gulen while View #2 says that it was a false flag." We are not advocating one or the other. We are simply showing what those differing points of view are, regardless of their validity.

The previous lead seems better, more or less, at least for the time being.

The previous lead was horrible. It was grammatically incorrect and lacked cohesion.
HTH,
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "promptly and swiftly" is not neutral language. It's not. It immediately stuck out as something I would not expect to read anywhere else on Wikipedia; something like "the Turkish Army mobilised immediately to defend the incumbent government" reads much better. I can see it has since been removed, though. -- GhostOfNoMeme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I've done a bit of a rewrite. I'm not sure if it's much of an improvement. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm in favor of just a blanket restoration of the previous lead. Even with subsequent corrections and c/e, I think the previous lead was probably better overall compared to the current. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "anti-coup protests" the best description?

The section titled "Incidents in anti-coup protests", is about various social- and/or sectarian unrest at various locations. Might the title be improved? Burst of unj (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Social unrest" does sound like a better title. --GGT (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Erdoğan fleeing abroad

"while reports also alleged that he had fled the country in a private jet.[46][47]" I'm having trouble editing this page, I keep getting 'this page is protected..' message. There is no evidence of the president attempting to flee abroad, source 46 is outdated and provides no evidence and 47 is irrelevant and doesn't support this claim. I couldn't find any other valid reports that he allegedly fleet the country. This was a rumour that emerged within the first hours of the coup attempt. Erdoğan appeared in İstanbul Atatürk airport so this allegation is false. Please remove this phrase as no credible sources allege this. Akincihan1 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

In the "Government response" section it says "Erdoğan's plane took off from Dalaman Airport near Marmaris at 11:47 p.m...." and several paragraphs down, "At around 4:00 a.m., approximately one and a half hours after Erdoğan left his hotel at Marmaris, two or three helicopters attacked the hotel he had left. " This is contradictory (unless Erdogan wasn't on the plane?). Podiaebba (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. This arose because initial reports were unclear about when Erdoğan left Marmaris. "approximately one and a half hours" has been removed. --GGT (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Coup d'état and/or "coup d'Erdoğan"?

"apparent coup d'état was attempted in Turkey against the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan[citation needed]"

Would it be better to rewrite this as "an apparent coup d'état was attempted in Turkey". against the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

The shootout at "Erdoğan's hotel" is already mentioned in the article. The shootout at the headquarters of the police special forces, is probably still mentioned in the article. Burst of unj (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Utopia of coups - not the real world

"Another major reason the coup failed was because it was executed by disjointed factions rather than the entirety of the military".

Comment: This is not "The wikipedia of topics from Utopia". The first quote probably needs improvement. Burst of unj (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish pilots who downed Russian jet were part of coup

Many sources report that "two Turkish pilots who played a role in the downing of a Russian plane in November are in custody over the weekend’s failed coup in Turkey,"
Some sources:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2016/07/19/Turkish-pilots-who-downed-Russian-jet-part-of-coup-plot-.html
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-pilots-who-downed-russian-jet-part-of-coup-plot-official---.aspx?pageID=238&nID=101786&NewsCatID=509

Do you think that we should add this? Gre regiment (talk)

Many people have been taken into custody as a precaution then later dismissed. I think it should only be put in if they are arrested. The government is still paranoid that there may be another attack or attempt so they have taken more people into custody than actually necessary. Akincihan1 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Arrest/detention I think could be mentioned in the following way: Military personnel that were detained on charges/suspicion of ... include pilot X and pilot Y (who shot down a Russian military aircraft year ...). These officers are not of a high rank, but they have an international reputation. Time will tell if they will ever be convicted for being part of a coup. Burst of unj (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt - necessary?

Is Category:2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt necessary? I think sometime we create categories simply to group people and parties to specific events, but most of these articles are not specifically about the coup d'état attempt. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm mildly in agreement. WP:CFD is available. I don't think articles like Yıldırım belong at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
One might consider starting a template. It might include hotspots of the event, where the most shots were fired, and the various places where many people died. (No disrespect to the subject intended.) Burst of unj (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
For now, I see that at least two articles belong in the category. The category is appropriate I think; if any of the three persons don't belong, then such articles should be un-categorized. Burst of unj (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Gözaltı" and "tutuklama"

I am by no means an authority on legal terminology, so I am bringing this up here: how do we distinguish between taking into custody of a suspect ("gözaltı") and the decision to keep that person in custody after questioning them ("tutuklama")? "Detention" and "arrest" respectively? I am asking this because, for example, not all 2839 military personnel who were initially taken into custody were later arrested, which needs to be made clear. --GGT (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "Detention" as holding someone in custody vs "arrest" as something more long-term, confirmed by a senior legal person at a court or by a court case or other legal procedure, tends to be common in many states around the world AFAIK (without the English sense of "you are under arrest" that might only mean "detention"). From English-language sources, we can only use what the sources say; if Turkish-language readers can add Turkish language sources, then I think using the two Turkish terms for clarification would be reasonable, e.g. "999 Turkish Ministry of Wikis were detained (gözaltı) and 2222 were held under arrest (tutuklama)". Others with more en.Wikipedia legal terminology may have more useful comments to make... Boud (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

CIA

CIA supported the coup here are some sources: http://journal-neo.org/2016/07/18/behind-the-cia-desperate-turkey-coup-attempt/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cia-officials-turkey-coup-advice_us_578a2d02e4b08608d334c32c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needbrains (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no. The HuffPo article is about retired CIA and US military officials talking about the coup after the fact, and explaining what went wrong. The NEO article is the opinion and speculation of precisely one guy with no connection to the CIA. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016


A statement like "Kemalism versus Islamism" is never acceptable. Even in the Turkish version of the article, there is no such title because Turkish people are not "stupid" to call those who likes Ataturk as irreligious, or the way around. This title is a clear insult to the Turkish nation.


212.252.73.157 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just left "kemalism", that subsection explains it further. Brandmeistertalk 10:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox minor

"After the end of the coup:" is written once in the casualties box and once more at the very end of the ınfobox. Could you remove both and put on ontop of the list in the last box. thanks. Akincihan1 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The flight into exile of eight military personnel in a helicopter

"The flight into exile of eight military personnel in a helicopter" could you please put this paragraph in a relevant subheading instead of on the main page. Thanks. Akincihan1 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Developments infobox

"Clashes between police officers and pro-coup soldiers.[4] Thousands of soldiers and members of the judiciary arrested.[11] Tens of thousands of state education employees suspended.[12] Fourteen navy ships are still missing.[13]"

Do these points really belong under notable developments in the infobox? The first three are repeated in other parts of the infobox, there is no need to put it there too, it defeats the purpose of an infobox. Is it appropriate to put the missing navy ships here? Thanks. Akincihan1 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A Gulfstream IV (airplane) is not the same as a flight

"told by President Erdoğan's pilot over the radio that the Gulfstream IV was a Turkish Airlines flight". Burst of unj (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify. In order to hide the identity of the aircraft, it was presented as a Turkish Airlines commercial flight when it was actually a private jet. Akincihan1 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

While the aircraft is in the air, it is referred by the flight details. Air traffic control refers to them as flights not aircraft. By disguising itself as a Turkish AIRLINES flight, they avoided being identified as a private jet. Akincihan1 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The quote, is it encyclopedic? (I understand what it means, but I am uncertain if it would be reasonable to improve the quote.) Burst of unj (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"In an effort to avoid being identified as a private jet and compromising the president's location, the pilot of the Gulfstream IV disguised itself as a Turkish Airlines flight." Maybe something like this? I'm not allowed to edit this page apparently, says it's protected, anyway I can overcome this? Thanks. Akincihan1 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Akincihan1: The article is semi-protected, which means that editors must be autoconfirmed in order to edit. For most people, this means an account age of four days and at least 10 edits. It looks like you have enough edits, but your account is only two days old. In the meantime, however, you can suggest edits using the template {{Edit semi-protected}}. clpo13(talk) 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Will this [4] edit do? Burst of unj (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Ugly. Incidentally, I added the aircraft type because it seems relevant that F-16s supposedly with a lock on a fairly small private aircraft (presumably with a military escort? Some sources suggest this) accepted it as a commercial airliner. It doesn't sound right; I've seen a suggestion that there was no lock, the coupists were hunting the skies but didn't come close enough for a lock, and only saw a Turkish Airlines callsign which they let pass without getting close enough to get suspicious. Podiaebba (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Spelling out the relevance of WikiLeaks

How is WikiLeaks (yet) relevant to the subject of the coup? I am not familiar with what sources might say. Therefore any relevance might need to spelled out more. Burst of unj (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

According to them, the documents are related to the failed Turkish coup, but we don't know yet since nothing is published until they fix the problem with their servers. Do you think that we should wait until then and see if the documents are really related to this?Gre regiment (talk)
I see a problem: WikiLeaks is not an independent source in regard to WikiLeaks. Without an independent source citing relevance to the coup, I will not object to someone (for now) removing the current mention of WikiLeaks. Burst of unj (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I second this. Seems like a combination of wp:recentism and wp:crystal to me. It might be important later, but it is not yet. Hollth (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few Western English-language mainstream media sources are paying attention to the WikiLeaks publication. The main relevance to the coup that these sources refer to is the timing - especially that the publication date was brought forward (shifted to an earlier date than was originally intended). I've reworked that section a bit, adding a reference, to make this clearer. I think what might be justified would be to shift this to a sub- or sub-sub-section elsewhere in the article. It's much more substantial than an international political leader's blabla "The coup attempt was a Bad Thing.", so I think it deserves a place in this article, not just in the "International reactions" sub-article. From a knowledge point of view, it's highly significant: the availability of first-hand source material for researchers is an important encyclopedic event, which is presumably why the media consider it notable and link it to the coup attempt and the subsequent events. Boud (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Shifted to sub-section by Duranged. Boud (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it seems my problems with it have been fixed. It previously said the documents were to be released in the future, not have been released. I should have checked the source first. I'm fine with it now. Hollth (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kemalism

Hi, views from more than one source need to be included. Too much emphasis was given to Kemalism in the article, supposedly based on a single article by the New York Times. For example, Soner Cagaptay argues in his book The Rise of Turkey: The Twenty-First Century's First Muslim Power that Kemlism is dead in Turkey and it no longer plays a major role in Turkish society, as it certainly had nothing to do with the current failed coup attemp. 213.74.186.109 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please let us know exactly what the book said about the coup attempt of 2016. Burst of unj (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Coup warnings

This source [5] suggests there's a whole story to be written on warnings from foreign agencies tipping off the Turkish government, and playing a crucial role in foiling the coup attempt. I urge people to look for info from good sources as it comes available and add it. Podiaebba (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about how neutral and reliable Fars News is on this. If it's not being picked up in other media I'd leave it well alone. Hollth (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Fars News Agency is unarguably reliable for its own reporting ("X reported..."), and its quasi-Iranian government status arguably makes it significant in itself. But I didn't attempt to add it or suggest others do - rather (to quote myself) "I urge people to look for info from good sources as it comes available and add it.". Having the Fars report to look at helps to know what to keep an eye out for elsewhere. Podiaebba (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Politicians seem to be making an extra effort for lining things up, for themselves being turned into defendants at international courts on human rights. Have legal scholars given notable opinions about to what degree suspending human rights, will make politicians accessories and/or facilitators to breaches of human rights that would follow? Burst of unj (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The state of emergency is within the Turkish constitution. It's the Government which decides how to use those powers which will be vulnerable to charges. It seems unlikely to be an issue to trouble them at the moment. Podiaebba (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead requires significant work

I just noted that the first sentence's parenthetical intends something it doesn't do, and that Gulen is later mentioned for a first time before actually being introduced as a subject. So, major rewording is required for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.26.47.97 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There might be simpler ways to say to an audience (that doesn't mainly consist of political scientists):
  • there was a coup attempt in Turkey
  • the coup was not necessarily against Erdogan (and Erdogan is not an "état")
  • the coup was not necessarily against AKP (and AKP is not an "état").
The current version says that the coup attempt was in Turkey (and parliament and the (Erdogan-) government is part of Turkey - so therefore it is not necessary to explain more in the lede regarding if- or how the coup attempt was "against Erdogan" or "Erdogan's government"). Burst of unj (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox overused

"After the end of the coup" titled bullet points add too much text to the infobox, most of the bullet points are repeated at the end of the infobox anyway. Repetitions defeat the purpose of the infobox. There is already a detailed subheading "Aftermath" for things that happened after. Akincihan1 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Civs

Killed civilians were on the side of the goverment known as local supporters, now it seems like any side could kill a civilian so this needs to be changed. the civilian casualties must be on the casualties2 listNeedbrains (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Now it seems like" suggests this is your opinion and its the first I've heard of its kind. I couldn't find any evidence or source that claims anti coup supporters killed civilians. Please provide me with a couple or reliable sources. Akincihan1 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The generalization made by user:Needbrains seems valid: it seems like any side could kill a civilian (even as a part of a false flag operation). Burst of unj (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The belligerents on the goverment side shows local supporters, the killed civilians are those local supporters you understand? So any permission to change this or? Needbrains (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

lol after reading again i came to know that you guys didnt understand me haha. i didnt say anti coup supporters killed civilians!!! i said the anti coup supporters ARE the civilians lol and i wanted their deaths to be in the casualties2 list Needbrains (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok I get you now. I agree, the civilians should be included in the casualties because they weren't killed in ways like collateral damage, they actually approached the pro coup side and the reason they done that was because the president told them to, therefore it is reasonable to put them in the casualties box. Akincihan1 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Peace at home council

Is it really appropriate to put alleged next to peace at home council? I thought they made it clear it was them in the pirate media and online broadcasts? Even if somebody else was behind it, this was the official group put forward to attempt the coup. Correct me if I'm wrong please. Akincihan1 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Some rifle-toting soldiers came to a TV studio (of TRT) with a sealed envelope (or document). Thereafter a TV reporter read the contents of the envelope (or document) that was stuck into her hand, and thereby introducing the completely unknown name "Peace at Home Council", that could not be definitely linked to anyone (apart from the aforementioned soldiers who rode into town with a sealed envelope (or document) - and an unknown set of orders, of what to do with the sealed envelope (or document).
It is unknown if any surviving soldiers of the aforementioned - later have been asked leading questions while experiencing interrogation enhancement techniques (or waterboarding or other types of torture-like experiences). Answers from some of the aforementioned soldiers will be available (for whatever the answers are worth in a legal system where judges are fired by the thousands per week), even though the clouds of reinstated death penalty have not passed yet.
Alleged council leading a coup attempt? There are no references stating that the apparent soldiers were part of a stag party prank. However, any existence of a peace council as mentioned, is arguably not much more than referenced hearsay (that might or might not be interfaced with conspiracy theories). Burst of unj (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see you have a heavily biased POV in the subject. Let me clarify what I mean. The group that claimed the coup attempt was the peace council. Whether or not group exists or if the soldiers were part of the said group doesn't invalidate the fact that this was the name given to the public. Who is behind the peace council is unknown, or whether this was a false flag, but in that logic Anonymous didn't carry out any of their attacks either. Akincihan1 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with parts of your logic. Regarding Anonymous - if you write about that group in the article, please remember citations. Burst of unj (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Counter-coup summary table

Issue moved to Talk:2016_Turkish_purges#Counter-coup summary table --Yug (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Akın Öztürk

Akın Öztürk is innocent according the official site of Turkish Armed Forces.[1] Beshogur (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is he in the infobox if he is not mentioned in the article? Davidships (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.tsk.tr/BasinFaaliyetleri/BA_193

There needs to be a section about blatant lies told by the western media about this coup attempt.

https://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/turkey-president-reportedly-seeking-asylum-germany

http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2016/07/18/us-embassy-denies-washington-post-report-on-kerry-says-turkey-key-ally-to-us-nato-and-eu

http://sputniknews.com/news/20160717/1043162524/helicopters-turkey-coup-erdogan-weapons.html

https://twitter.com/orko_8/status/755356901068734464

Here are couple of examples of such blatant lies published by the western media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.91.82 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

None of those websites can be considered part of "the western media". I'm well-tuned into western politics, and of those 4 URLs, I've only even heard of stratfor. It is not well-known or well-read. A twitter user definitely does not count as "western media", even if he was a real journalist, which he is not. Those URLS don't have radio, TV, or print capabilities, or any meaningful audience. This talk page is made for criticism of THIS ARTICLE, not of other articles that aren't on Wikipedia. Also your headline seems very biased, as your section doesn't even specify 1 lie that you dispute, let alone establish "blatancy". Western media knows nearly nothing about Turkey. It would be hard for them to tell a lie about it. It would be easy for them to say something that is simply incorrect. Ace Frahm (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

NBC made that claim about Erdogan seeking refugee in Germany and apparently NBC's source was a "senior military person" and here's a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=999sJ6JRcFI - I can't link the NBC source because NBC deleted their pages. And here is the British online newspaper The Independent claiming that Turkish warships are missing after the coup: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-attempt-turkish-navy-ships-admirals-military-president-erdogan-a7144141.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.91.82 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@78.181.91.82: If those links appear in the article, or use them as references, please say - otherwise, there is nothing we can do about the contents of a news article. As Ace Frahm said above, "This talk page is made for criticism of THIS ARTICLE, not of other articles that aren't on Wikipedia". If you have a problem with the articles, it'd be better for you to contact the news outlets themselves, as us editors at Wikipedia are not connected to those media outlets.  Seagull123  Φ  22:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Seagull123: Well those articles I linked are literally about this coup attempt and since there are couple of examples of some of these really big western media outlets (European and American) publishing completely false news article to push for a pro-coup agenda, I think their actions needs to be mentioned in this wiki page. Because really big news outlets such as the American MSNBC or the British the Independent publishing false news is kind of a big deal wouldn't you say so? 78.181.91.82 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@78.181.91.82: If you want to include in this article that some media outlets are publishing "false" information, you need reliable, independent sources that say so. If you can find reliable, independent sources that say this, then this information can be included, as we can't just say these media outlets publish "false" information because we, as WP editors, think so, otherwise we'd be conducting original research. There'd also have to be significant coverage of this "false" information, so it isn't undue.  Seagull123  Φ  21:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

mobile phone interview

In section "Government response and conflict", please change "Erdoğan did a FaceTime interview with CNN Türk" to ""Erdoğan did a FaceTime interview with CNN Türk reporter Hande Fırat[6]". Then after the end of the sentence, add "Fırat later declined an offer 1 million Saudi Riyals (about 260,000 USD) for the phone used in the interview, saying she preferred to donate the handset to Turkey's national museum".[7]

More wording should probably be added about how the mobile phone was shown directly on TV, a bizarre image that has since been shown all over the world. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"False Flag" on see also ?

Although there claims that this coup was a false flag operation, they are not proven and don't have any legitimacy. I therefore suggest removing that text from "See also" section. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter if something was proven. Flat Earth was not proven. It only matters if something was covered in a large number of sources/notable and therefore should be included per WP:NPOV. Perhaps this could be retitled, rewritten, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The argument is moot because per WP:ALSO the section should not include links already in the body of the article. I have removed it accordingly. TimothyJosephWood 13:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Article split

The "aftermath" section is going to carry on growing, and has a high overlap with the "purges" article. Wouldn't it make more sense to just split that off, and focus this article on the events of 15/16 July, including analysis of them? Equally, the whole "Turkish soldiers' request for political asylum in Greece" section is quite lengthy and frankly a bit of a distraction from the main event, so why not split that off? Podiaebba (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A split will be needed soon, if not already. The "purges" article focuses on one major aspect of the "aftermath", but the aftermath is and most likely will be wider, e.g. including the state of emergency. It would be good to have splits that are more or less complementary, with only brief summaries of each other - otherwise the "purges" article risks losing its focus on one main aspect of this whole set of events. How about 2016 Turkish state of emergency? I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL to split that off as a separate article, even though the content is small so far - it's defined to (initially) exist for 3 months, so the content is more likely to grow than drop. The relation with the European Human Rights Convention makes it a concrete legal event, with several sources. Some parts of the main article that are better covered in the purges article could be compressed to summaries here. I agree on the "Turkish soldiers' request for political asylum in Greece" splitting off too. It's not quite central to the coup attempt, it's not quite central to the thread of events in Turkey itself, so it seems like a justified split to me. Boud (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The soldiers in Greece is a good target. As you say, it's linked, but kind of tangential too (becoming a bit of a wp:coatrack). Not too sure about the having an article dedicated to the aftermath though. That seems like it would be rife with wp:OR to me. I reckon it would be safer to spin-off as each section within aftermath becomes too large (like the soldiers in Greece).Hollth (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've done July 2016 Turkish military asylum incident in Greece split. Needs some work to tidy it up. Podiaebba (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Gulen Movement (Claimed)

Somebody should add this in Belligerents since is claimed by the Turkish Goverment

Also add "Feto" as an sub of this and Fethullah Gulen as one of the leaders, with the "Claimed" included of course.

But they weren't belligerents. The only way that would work if it's with a "Supported by" (claimed) or something like that. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Undue?-highlighted part of lead.

Somebody has highlighted a portion of the lead for discussion. I couldn't see any discussion. Hence, I'm starting some up. The following sentence has been linked for citation and undue. Discuss XD

...some members of the Turkish government and pro-government media have accused the U.S. government of secretly backing the plot.

I'd be happy for it to be removed. I agree that it is somewhat undue and would be better for the body of the article. Hollth (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this specific claim is, nor ever has been, central to the situation. Therefore it should not be in the lead which should give a concise summary of the main topic. (It might fit somewhere else though) Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

AKP and FETO are the Same Organisation

Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Fetoist Terrorist Organisation (FETO) are actually the same organisation. JDP and FETO are only different names for this organisation. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Fetullah Gulen are rival leaders within this structure.

This is nonsense. Akincihan1 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

JDP (FETO) is in government as a mass. Both leaders of the structure are religious fundemantalists. What happening in Turkey now is a clash for obtaining power and leadership inside the structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidefamation (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

BBC news section

Am I the only one to think that the "BBC News" section [8] which is based on one article from the Sabah newspaper accusing the BBC of bias is completely out of order? Aside from only being one article, and from a government-aligned Turkish newspaper, the quoted content isn't exactly damning anyway. (The "unprofessional" introduction sounds like standard aggressive questioning on certain BBC news.) And the BBC's search for citizens willing to criticise the government (as well as those willing to defend it) is evidence of bias? Podiaebba (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: the only other sources currently available, [9][10], do not establish that this issue has attracted enough notice to meet WP:BALASPS, and as an important consequence has insufficient independent coverage to provide any WP:BALANCE. I'm going to go ahead and remove it until better sources appear (or consensus disagrees with us). FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The article states cleary what the bbc did, even proof of an email screenshot was added. I wanted to ad more sources for the issue with Gulen, she said it via her own twitter account, but you guys kept removing it for "neutrality" which I find not valid as there are many sources added under "false flag" too while if we talk about proof none of these "false flag" theories can be proven true or even came out. If you find that "neutral". I don't. And also where did you find evidence of bbc willing to find people defend it? The email states clearly they are only looking for people willing to criticise it. If you disagree, add content proven otherwise instead of removing others'. BM Tornado (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it's true (although the analysis of the email is an opinion, not a fact), but whether it's important enough to include, as determined by the number of reliable sources which discuss it. Most facts in this article are supported by multiple detailed reports in respected international media; including something that has barely attracted notice outside state-run media would be giving it undue weight, which is against policy. We welcome more sources to support this content, but they need to be high-quality: independent of the government, Ms. Aybet, and the BBC, and containing detailed analysis. This would almost automatically provide the further benefit of presenting different notable perspectives on the issue. FourViolas (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Remove it. Even given notability (which it lacks), it's a clear cut case of wp:coatrack and wp:undue. It's only tangentially related at best. Hollth (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it an opinion may I ask? Because it's a fact he couldn't find any who criticise the government right? Or do I see it wrong? If I add extra source as the official twitter account and her exact same tweets, of Ms. Gulnur is it then more fair? To show that the claims on the newspaper are based really on what she said herself in her experience? @(talk) BM Tornado (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that won't help. Have another look at FourViolas' reply above. Podiaebba (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand then why some claims on this page is allowed while the sources are only from one Turkish media source whoch is very vague too. Why are these allowed then? BM Tornado (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BM Tornado. Most of the sources on conspiracy theories are tweets and anti Erdoğan media. I understand it may not be relevant to the coup attempt, but it is important to include the criticism of the BBC at the time. Akincihan1 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's true that the false flag section is doing a mixed job of satisfying reliable sourcing and neutrality policies, but that just means we should fix those problems as I started to do, making sure all sources are reliable (ideally independent) and information is presented fairly. The difference is that many reliable sources have discussed that aspect, and none have discussed the BBC's supposed bias. FourViolas (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So if I understood it right I have to add more sources from multiple sources about the bias bbc news subject if it has to be displayed on wikipedia? Also is the website of Bellingcat allowed as a source as they leaked the conversation betweent coup commanders? @FourViolas BM Tornado (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you know the Turkish language? If you do, I suggest you to study the Turkish sources in the false flag section and then remove sections which are based on vague, or biased claims/sources. @Akincihan1 BM Tornado (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but not just more sources: we need better sources which meet the requirements of WP:Identifying reliable sources. Specifically, they should be third-party (not from the government or BBC) sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Our community consensus about Bellingcat as of a year ago was that it didn't meet the second standard, so unless you think something major has changed we need to find a more professional source reporting on the information Bellingcat leaked.
You're right that there are bad sources in the false flag section; I can get some idea of the journalistic standards they're using with Google Translate, but the assistance of Turkish-speaking editors who can keep their personal opinions at bay (a near-impossible request at the moment) would help a lot. FourViolas (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Bellingcats a joke SaintAviator lets talk 03:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I speak Turkish fluently, ever conspiracy theory source I have checked so far is not valid. I don't want to remove paragraphs as wholes. The problem is, the only real person who claimed this is a false flag is Fethullah GULEN. After he made this announcement, people loyal to him supported his claims. Therefore, the only sources you will find are people and media that are loyal to Gülen and are highly biased with a personal emotional hatred towards the president and Turkish government. Akincihan1 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, the title should be changed to "Tin foil hat wearing Gülenists who are throwing a tantrum because their coup attempt failed" because literally, the only thing the sources come to is a bunch of tweets. Even the western English sources are only news articles that quote one or two people who criticised the coup attempt. Akincihan1 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Somehow this got archived before the request closed. Not moved, WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt → 2016 Turkish alleged coup d'état attempt – Referring to this as a "coup d'état attempt" is WP:POV as it is unknown if it was a coup attempt and who was behind it. 99.8.13.120 (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Russia warned Turkey of coup

Russia Warned Turkish Government About Imminent Coup. [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] SaintAviator lets talk 03:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Good for them, but that does not make them an active party in the conflict. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The warning allowed Erdogan to evade the 14 Commandos in 2 choppers sent to kill him on his vacation. Thats critical. Hence coup failed.
Thus Putin outsmarted Obama again. "The CIA and FBI provided training in several subjects to the cadre raised in the culture centers belonging to the Gulen movement," read the indictment. - Indictment prepared by the Edirne Public Prosecutor’s office and submitted to the local Second Heavy Penal Court, [17] SaintAviator lets talk 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders section in the infobox

My suggestions:

  • Let's list three people here: President Erdoğan, PM Yıldırım and the Commander of the First Army in Istanbul, General Dündar. General Akar, who is the Chief of the General Staff was captured by the plotters at the start of this coup attempt. I don't think he should be listed.
  • Things are more tricky at the pro-coup camp. For example, General Öztürk, who is the highest ranking officer among the accused, has denied involvement. So I say let's list those who are certain to involved for now. Two examples: Brigadier General Semih Terzi, who was killed while trying to take control of the Special Forces Command; Bridgadier General Gökhan Şahin Sönmezateş, who was tasked with capturing and/or killing President Erdoğan. Sönmezateş has already confessed to being a plotter. Finally let's list Fethullah Gülen at the bottom under a subtitle "supported by". --Mttll (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose if the official version of the Turkish goverment is to be attested here, Fethullah gulen was the one that organized the Coup and give orders to the others Plot Commanders of how behave, that´s not "Supporting" if you are the mastermind behind the coup. Akar was an Captured commander, he was an belligerent during the coup. And "Alleged" is enough for the inconclused state of those accused of participating in the Coup, Ozturk, kose and Gulen included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazara90 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the Turkish government definitely has an interest here, the official version of the Turkish government cannot be considered neutral, nor reliable. We need reliable, neutral, secondary sources that reflect on the evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, there is really no single "official" version of this event. For example, some MPs from the Justice and Development Party insinuate that General Akar is among the plotters, or at best, that he prefered a wait-and-see approach during the coup attempt. On the other hand, General Akar himself released a statement in the General Staff website saying that General Öztürk was trying to convince the plotters to give up. Isn't it a bit strange to list Akar and Öztürk as opposing commanders when Akar himself seems to believe that Öztürk was on his side? --Mttll (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Use the Turkish Govt list, include US General they name. [18] and [19] SaintAviator lets talk 23:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
We do not use automatically treat the claims of governments as true. I have again deleted the ludicrous Fethullah Gulen as "commander" claim that had been inserted into the belligerents section of what is a MILITARY infobox. Not a shred of evidence has ever been presented in any source to back up this claim - Erdogan just repeating the raw claim 100 times a day does not make the claim any more valid or worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Infoboxes are meant for hard facts. And remember, there are BLP issues here. Erdogan has also been alleging (with equal lack of presented evidence) that the USA supported the coup - are we to have America inserted into the belligerents infobox? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You are edit warring Tiptoe. The days of pure military conflicts are long gone, decades ago. Google proxy wars. Hard Facts? Truth is not a criteria, you should know this by now. RS refs is whats counts. So take your RS concerns to a noticeboard SaintAviator lets talk 23:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is the Turkish government list a reliable source? First of all it is not a secondary source, secondly the Turkish government definitely has an interest here, making such a list even more suspicious. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What are you saying? I dont understand. SaintAviator lets talk 21:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Akar himself Declares that the pustchtists gave him an phone to talk with gulen himself, now, i not saying that the turkish goverment is completely reliable, but there's enough to put gulen with the "alleged" discreción added in the infobox until more facts are presented. Jazara90 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not one shred of evidence has been produced by Turkey to back up any of its allegations against Gulen in relation to the coup attempt. Turkish government sources should be considered completely unreliable - I am saying that. Only neutral, third party sources should be used to decide on content that is presented as a known fact (factual data are what infoboxes are for). If a thing is uncertain it should not be stated as if it were known to be true. If something is uncertain until more facts are known, then that content should not be in the article at all. "Alleged" is weasel, along with words like "claimed", "supposed", etc., - it is not a word that should be used. No legal process has begun regarding Gulen, so no legal body has "accused" him of anything. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Its enough RS secondary sources say what the Govt is saying. Im really surprised you dont get its not about truth. Wikipedia: Truth is not a criteria, RS is. Again if you question the RS, noticeboard it SaintAviator lets talk 22:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Great Secondary Sources: Erdogan says US behind Coup

'Erdogan said the U.S. was taking sides with coup plotters' [20] 'Turkey's Erdogan edges closer to blaming the US for coup attempt' [21] Erdogan often refers to a "mastermind" in his speeches, a reference widely seen as an allusion to the West in general and the United States more specifically. [22] SaintAviator lets talk 02:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of the article, someone must add the antecedents of the Gülen movement in the Background section, the current state seems to imply that this was almost secure an Kemalist Coup d'état --Jazara90 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This to. Breaking: Erdogan accuses West of 'writing the script' for Turkey coup [23] SaintAviator lets talk 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not present the claims of governments or dictators as if they were true. We present them as claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously Truth!! You NEED to bone up on Wikipedia. Its all about RS. Do you have a problem with the source? If so take it to a noticeboard SaintAviator lets talk 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If we follow this through we also have great secondary sources that show that it was indeed Erdogan himself who was behind the coup!!!! [24] 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That theory is fine, I think its already there. Its BS but if the RS is ok, good, knock yrself out SaintAviator lets talk 22:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Great Secondary Sources: Erdogan says US behind Coup

'Erdogan said the U.S. was taking sides with coup plotters' [25] 'Turkey's Erdogan edges closer to blaming the US for coup attempt' [26] Erdogan often refers to a "mastermind" in his speeches, a reference widely seen as an allusion to the West in general and the United States more specifically. [27] SaintAviator lets talk 02:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of the article, someone must add the antecedents of the Gülen movement in the Background section, the current state seems to imply that this was almost secure an Kemalist Coup d'état --Jazara90 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This to. Breaking: Erdogan accuses West of 'writing the script' for Turkey coup [28] SaintAviator lets talk 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not present the claims of governments or dictators as if they were true. We present them as claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously Truth!! You NEED to bone up on Wikipedia. Its all about RS. Do you have a problem with the source? If so take it to a noticeboard SaintAviator lets talk 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If we follow this through we also have great secondary sources that show that it was indeed Erdogan himself who was behind the coup!!!! [29] 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That theory is fine, I think its already there. Its BS but if the RS is ok, good, knock yrself out SaintAviator lets talk 22:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to add an icon to infobox's map for İncirlik Air Base

Since there were relevant happenings concerning the Incirlik Air Base, near Adana; I suggest that it should me mapped on the infobox, also I recommend to use a different icon than dots, because dots are marking population centres and this is an air base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.101.42.82 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Got a good secondary RS ref? SaintAviator lets talk 22:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Desinfo/psychological operations - Asylum request in Germany

NBC reported —citing a US military source— that Erdoğan sought asylum in Germany, and that it was denied.

--79.223.22.54 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is in any way central to the coup. In addition, this report came out during the very chaotic immediate aftermath. So NBC may have based itself on non-confirmed reports that they should have double checked. Bad journalism and sloppy: Yes. Masterminded complot - probably not, in any case not without strong evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Most Main Stream Media outlets are sloppy a lot, whores at worst. Media ownership concentration (6 or so) is manipulated more easily than when there were 60 or so big outlet owners. SaintAviator lets talk 23:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

after over disagreements

I don't understand this sentence ".. did not denounce the coup after over disagreements of the phrasing a statement"
Please explain or correct it, thanks. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Turkish_coup_attempt/Archive_2&oldid=1178455607"