Talk:2016 Turkish coup attempt/Archive 3

Zbignew Brzezinski and his "confirmation" of American support for the coup
I reverted the edit for the following reasons: First, the language of the edit is POV: Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a tweet on the 11th of August 2016, confirmed the USA backed the coup attempt How can Brzezinski "confirm" something he was not privy to? Second the sources don't look very reliable and their coverage of the incident is not extensive. For instance the awd news homepage includes news that Hitler did not really kill himself but escaped to South America. Meanwhile, the other source "Middle East press" deals in articles propagating conspiracy theories about CIA's involvement in the coup. Third, at Brzezinski's twitter account no such tweet exists. Fourth, the alleged tweet contains bad grammatical and syntax errors. Kind of weird, given Brzezinski's mastery of the English language. Dr.  K.  23:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I added an reference from Sputnik news, someone should add this new info in the Suspects behind the coup attempt section Jazara90 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That section seems to consist for the most part out of fringe theories as is. What is striking though is that Erdogan is missing, as there have been several reports in reliable newspapers that the Erdogan himself was behind the coup in order to get more power himself and have a reason to eliminate opposition.
 * Or in other words - NO NO NO, we should not add gossip tweets by retired people further removed from those privy to the coup than many Wikipedians. Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Someone recently added the US as a participant in the infobox; I removed them per this. It's very common that participants in internal conflicts accuse the other party of being a foreign proxy, but Wikipedia should be very careful not to report such allegations as facts, unless they are broadly supported by independent third parties (such as, for example, American support for the 1973 coup in Chile). Political allegations should be discussed in the article, as they have political consequences; but adding them to the infobox gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve. Perhaps Russia should be removed from the infobox too. 96T (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes we should. Russian involvement is denied by everyone. We could as well list Botswana or Fiji to the belligerent list, as that country has been acknowledged as involved by the same number of parties. I removed Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To Arnoutf

1-The one that officially acussed the FBI and the CIA of supporting the Turkish Coup plotters was an Turkish State agency, no some Conspirancy theorist, is pretty official

2-Erdogan self-coup theory is already in the article

3-Sputnik news is as reliable as washington news and else

4-Iranian Intelligency was the one that alleged the Russian support, so no all parties involved denied it

And also, to 96T, we are not reporting those allegations as facts, that`s why they have the "Alleged" part included, and even so, the United States have not accepted yet their participation in the Chilean Coup, and Chilean goverment have not yet officialy accused the US of doing so, and yet they are included in the belligerents of that article, until i find some rules that say we cannot put allegations presented as that in the Infobox, i will reinclude both American and Russian alleged support, i agree to include them in the article as well. Jazara90 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted the US involvement. But I will show how much you are off base.
 * Re (1) Since we cannot assume that the Turkish state agency has access to CIA and FBI files this cannot be assumed to be a proven fact. That a Turkish official stated this makes it clearly a non-neutral opinion. While this may justify inclusion in the article, these allegation therefore have no place in the infobox
 * Re (2) But not in the infobox. If you would have read my comment you could see that I am equally opposed to including the Erdogan theory in the infobox, as I am opposed to including the US / Russia theories in the infobox. The question to you us: Why are you so in favour of adding unconfirmed claims to the infobox but NOT this specific one?
 * Re (3) Washington news does not exist (I guess you mean Washington post). Please read up on state interference in Russian media and why that makes almost all Russian media less reliable than most non-Russian news sources. Read the Sputnik News Wikipedia article, and you should realise why this specific source is pretty much unreliable even by Russian standards. Bold claim by you without any argument or evidence cannot be taken serious
 * Re (4) Since when was Iran involved? Has Iran Intelligence reaffirmed this claim after Russian/Turkish denial? If not, we have insufficient cause to add this in the infobox (but we can and should leave it into the larger article).
 * So in short, not a single one of your claims if backed by logical arguments and/or evidence.
 * Before re-adding. Please give a clear account why including Russia/US but not Erdogan (as part of the coup) in the infobox is a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. Please explain in detail why adding this indirect support is not putting undue attention on something only tangentially related to the core of the matter per WP:UNDUE. Please explain in a similar vein why these accusations are more than merely conspiracy theories per WP:Fringe. And try to refrain from fallacies when doing so. ThanksArnoutf (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. We cannot put fringe theories in the infobox. WP:REDFLAG applies here. Dr.   K.  17:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

1)The "Theory" of American alleged involvement ceased to be it in the Moment that the Turkish State Accused two american Agency`s of providing support to the Coup, is not an theory anymore but an Official Accusation

2)Read the point 1, first one nobody has provided any evidence for the self-coup theory, only allegations without fundament funded in general ignorance about the situation in turkey(Ex how many were purged in an short space of time after the Coup, ignoring the Turkish goverment-gulen conflict has spaced three years until now, and that the removement of those people inflitrated in the State was going to happen even without the Coup, that possibly being the reason of why the Coup happened in first place If we add the self coup theory in this, we can also include in the chilean coup article infobox things like how The chilean coup was made by Communists in the army dressed as anti-comunists so 40 years later allende can be seen as an martyr and an leftist goverment can return to power after the failed economies policy's of allende almost destroy the political left in Chile, ¿sounds logical rigth?

3)Well if you have problems with the sources, take it to an Noticeboard, just like Saintaviator says, however that is pretty irrelevant in this matter since Turkey has acussed FBI and CIA of providing support to the Coup, this is an Fact no matter what source you provided.

4)that`s the issue, Iranian Intelligency is an third Source not involved in the conflict, and also an strong reliable one to make that assumption, the fact that they not denied Russian involvement even after Russia denied it make their claim suit enough to be in the Infobox, considering that Iran is an Russian Ally

Also, i may include some Off examples outside this article, why in the Yemen Civil war article Iran appears in the Infobox to Allegedly giving support to the houthis? the only sources i can find come for Saudi Allegations and american news giving voice to the claims of their ally, and they absolutely NOT neutral in the matter ¿why in that article those allegations are permitted in the Infobox and in this not? Jazara90 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RE 1: Ever heard of the adagium innocent till PROVEN guilty (and not innocent till accused).
 * RE 2: See 1
 * RE 3: Since Sputnik is proven to be unreliable, it is up to you not to me to argue its acceptance.
 * RE 4: What access does Iranian intelligence has to Russian/Turkish classified information? So why would they be relevant at all?
 * Since Wikipedia articles are not reliable, what has been done on another Wiki article cannot provide an argument. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I) Yes, that`s why the Alleged is included, like in many other articles like in the mentionated yemen Conflict page since there is absolute not Rule to not include allegations in the infobox as long as the claim is strong enough

II) well i can include other sources like RT, but i think you will also claim that RT is not "Reliable" enough, but Turkey accused the CIA and the FBI to be involved in the Coup, this is an Fact, i may ask, breibart is Reliable enough?

III)Iran is an country with strong military, economic and political links with Russia, i dont think they don`t have a presence in Turkey as well, i think they are better source that some tip fodders in twitter claiming that the Coup was made by Erdogan

Considering what i just say, the Claims of American and Russian Involvement in the Coup are not an conspirancy theory, they are claimed by official entities including entire Nation States unlike the self-coup theory, if you don`t have another argument, i will reinclude those claims in the infobox Jazara90 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I) Alleged may apply for a party with a clear stake (like Gulen) WP:REDFLAG would apply for a party without such a stake.
 * II)Thanks you for raising RT (another Russian government media agency). That does confirm my earlier comment. The accusation of Turkey falls under innocent till proven.
 * III) This line is riddled with "I think" argument. Evidence rather than original thought by Wikipedia editors is however required.
 * Since your arguments are all fallacious or irrelevant I simply cannot follow your conclusion. Also consider that you make extraordinary claims (about involvement of major powers) so you really, really, really need extraordinary evidence (per the WP:REDFLAG raised by Dr K). So far your evidence has been crumbling with each consecutive argument you raise rather than coming anywhere close to being reliable, let alone extraordinary. Perhaps it is time to walk away from this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I may ask what you consider an "Clear Stake" or "Extraodinary Evidence" (As such thing is need to put an Allegation, as far i don`t see any extraodinary evidence in all the wikipedia articles with similar formats) or your Opinion about Breibart again, but since you reject to debate my arguments by simply calling them fallacious and irrelevant, i will simply consider this discussion Obsolete, i will re-put the American and Russian alleged involvements, if you insist bring a Admin so this can be discussed futher Jazara90 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, Breitbart not a reliable source for alleging covert backing of the overthrow of a sovereign government, and neither is a tweet. Please see WP:RS. Also see WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS. the burden of proof and achieving consensus falls on the person suggesting a change to an article. You do not enjoy the luxury of simply deciding that you disagree and changing an article to fit your personal preference. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This will be an reliable argument, but neither breibart, RT, or Sputnik news are the one`s alleging FBI and CIA support to the Coup, is the Turkish State the one that`s is doing it, those sources are just reporting into it. And i don`t charging the Article myself, Artuff is the one doing it, for example i did not include american alleged support myself Jazara90 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've included American alleged support twice today alone. If the Turkish government is alleging it, then it should be easy to find better sources than Breitbart and Russian controlled news. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And even so, we should assume innocence till evidence of guilt is generally accepted. Turkish accusations without such general acceptance of guilt are not sufficiently strong for inclusion in the infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, it took 50 years to substantiate CIA involvement in the Iranian revolution. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I found one of an turkish news source with an english equivalent. I was undoing the changes that arnouff and another one were doing in the first place, you can look in the history and be confirmed yourself.

About the Iranian revolution, thank god today we have modern Communications so the dirty things are knowed much faster, much to the disgrace of certain goverments that have an history of ploting coups in sovereingn Nations

And Artuff, i suppose you will go to every modern conflict articles in wikipedia to delete all the "Allegeds" in the infobox according to your "innocent till PROVEN guilty", because i sorry because i can`t see why your editing philosophy that you try to pass of as an wikipedia rule only apply in this article. Jazara90 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article cites a local Turkish prosecutor. This is not exactly the equivalent of an official Turkish spokesperson. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the specific Wikipedia guideline or policy about alleged involvement and I will seriously consider it. Otherwise we have to base the inclusion on a page-by-page consensus process and cannot claim an existing "Wikipedia rule". Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule is WP:RS. The accusations of a low level lawyer does not count as a reliable source for allegations of a grand geopolitical conspiracy. Big claims require big sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An high autority inside the Turkish State in an Turkish city released an statement accusing the United States of collaborating with the Coup, and the rest of the Turkish State don`t try to supress it(they are even encouraging this claims) Add this to the various allegations of Representants of the Turkish State releasing more of this allegations, with an Turkish State news accusing an NATO general of being an mastermind of the Coup, i fail to see how the allegation is not strong enough Jazara90 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The source you provided cites a low level government lawyer. That is not sufficient to substantiate accusing most of the Western world of overthrowing a government. If there are official representatives of the Turkish state (i.e., not low level lawyers) making these allegations, then it should be easy to find a major established news outlet (i.e. not Breitbart) covering this. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, an accusation is no evidence. We only list proven facts in infoboxes, and leave open discussion for the rest of the page. We also not add to the Erdogan infobox that he is a goat-fucker in spite of the claim he is on the highly reliable ZDF.
 * Let me spell this out to you: I do not object that this material is in the article. Unproven accusations by official are relevant for the unfolding story. I do, however, object to addition to the infobox, as that elevates these unproven accusations to an extra-ordinarily important level. As stated above (repeatedly) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Repeating ordinary evidence does not meet that requirement.
 * User:Timothyjosephwood I would add that not only WP:RS but also WP:UNDUE is relevant here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Very very notable allegations have been made by the Turkish state against the USA. RS can be found reporting it. We agree on that. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant in Wikipedia. Thats Policy. If you have a problem with the RS, noticeboard it. Thus if 'alleged' is used 'neither confirmed or denied' etc, its fine in the info box. Saint Aviator  lets talk 22:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly nobody seems to listen. Everybody agrees there is such a report. This is not an RS issue. Everybody agrees that these remarks are sufficiently notable for inclusion in the body text of the article. Nobody has provided a compelling argument this information is sufficiently important for highlighting it in the infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is agreement on the RS. I stayed out of this one for a long time. Thing is I have not read any info box stuff rules for some time, can you link it here to clarify your position Saint Aviator  lets talk 07:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is Jazara90 claiming that there are rules. And as I said (many many many many times) above, this is not about the reliability that A claim is made by someone. But whether the claim is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the infobox which should only "summarize key features" (quoting MOS:INFOBOX). So far not a single argument has been presented why the alleged Russian warning and US involvement are key features of this article. I have asked repeatedly to provide such arguments and the only thing I hear is that some RS sources exist that report the claims exist, but not even report that these involvements are key to the issue. Arnoutf (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So if Im getting this right, there are no WP guidelines you can source here on what should be in the Info Box. Just your POV? Saint Aviator  lets talk 08:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Euhm no, you are not getting it right. I just referred to a guideline MOS:INFOBOX. Try at least to listen to what I am saying before denouncing the content of my argument. Arnoutf (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That link was down yesterday. I see nothing there which excludes what Jazara90 wants in. Its like you just dont like it.  Saint Aviator  lets talk 00:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Arnouff, if you want to know why two Global Powers are making an proxy conflict in another country in form of an Coup is an "Key feature" well.......... And until all the time you only criticized the reliability of the Sources, never why those allegations are important, about your question, considering that Turkey just shifted their exterior Policy to the East leaving Nato just afer an Coup when they allegated their allies organized is pretty much one big reason Jazara90 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhh.. what? See WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree Jazara, its a big deal and should be 'summarized' in the info box. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't even tell what they're saying... except for the flatly wrong claim that Turkey "exterior Policy to the East leaving Nato just afer an Coup when they allegated their allies organized" Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I cant work out what you are saying. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you make out what Jazara90 is saying? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think my english is pretty understable, sorry for the gramatical errors, is not my first language after all, however you should stop using Ad-Hominen, Turkey is shifting their alliances West to East, I think this is Important enough to be sumarized in the Infobox if that`s the problem of Arnuff and others Jazara90 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. I understood what you were saying, but not the other guy VM. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 05:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Making multiple copyedits for comprehensibility of your own statement after another editor has stated he finds the text hard to understand does of course helps to make it look like the editor having trouble with the text is at fault. It is generally considered impolite to change your own texts in discussion threads after another editor has commented upon it, in particular if changes relate to the content of the response (like here). Arnoutf (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jazzara was not talking to me, <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 02:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed Sources
This article is crawling with junk sources like SputnikNews or RT and God knows what else. Twitter. There's a ton of sketchy material in it, mostly the usual conspiracy theory mongering and silliness. Can we at the very least add a POV tag to it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. As far as "what else" you mentioned just above, hardline conservative newspaper Yeni Safak is making fringe allegations against a US General and this BLP-violating hogwash is edit-warred into the infobox. Notice, how for special effect, the picture of the general is slanted in the article. This is very low-quality journalism. In fact, in an earlier edit, a 10-edit account named the general explicitly in the infobox. Dr.   K.  03:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, while these sources may be borderline acceptable for flagging up some statements of some people, they cannot be used to interpret importance or relevance of these claims. Arnoutf (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is a slanted photo low quality journalism? And if these sources are not acceptable for interpret importance then which sources are? BM Tornado (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You guys claim RT and stuff have sketchy material, but then what are your arguments? Are only western sources allowed or something? BM Tornado (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, apparently only sources here "allowed", which fits their narrative. I rather welcome different opinions and views and let the reader decide what to make from it. Bradley258 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not about "Western" vs "non-Western". There's plenty of "Western" sources which would also be unreliable. The guidelines for reliability are at WP:RS. Questions can be asked at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily - But a reliable source needs to be free to report what happens, even if that goes against national interest. And there is evidence that this is problematic at the moment in Russia. That does not say that we should not consider individual sources (as we do with Western sources and where we decide that The Sun is generally not reliable. If you would read the RT (TV network) article on Wikipedia, you would see that there are a lot of sources that claim RT is not a reliable news outlet. And that is why we do not deem it reliable. Arnoutf (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have all seen how reliable and credible western journalism was before the invasion of Iraq. Heck, even during the putsch attempt NBC reported that Erdogan fled to German and this was widely circulated as it if was a fact.Bradley258 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is a slanted photo low quality journalism? Because it depicts the subject of the article in an unusual way which is equivalent to visual editorialising. It's like inferring that the general is unstable, not in words but in a visual way. It is a form of propaganda. Dr.   K.  15:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's an unusual way of thinking. I never think of unstable portraying when a slanted photo is displayed. And I think that if you don't like the sources, add sources which you find reliable to contradict the claims. BM Tornado (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is to those who want to include material, not to those contesting its inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an unusual way of thinking. I never think of unstable portraying when a slanted photo is displayed. There is nothing "unusual" that this ultra conservative newspaper is trying to portray its perceived enemies in the worst way possible, including using weird pictures of them. If you don't understand that, that's your problem, not mine. And I think that if you don't like the sources, add sources which you find reliable to contradict the claims. Read the Yeni Safak article. Quote:
 * Are you seriously trying to insert such a bad source into this article and use it to spread rumours about a BLP subject such as that US General? This conversation is getting unreal.  Dr.   K.  00:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Disputed content' is not the issue so WP:ONUS does not apply <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Dr. K makes the correct point - you can't use junk sources to spread rumors about living persons in Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Dr. K makes the correct point - you can't use junk sources to spread rumors about living persons in Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

BM Tornado RT and the like are fine for quoting i.e. RT quotes the French President etc. Its used a lot. To the others: Take it to a noticeboard. Its been there before BTW. A lot of conflict can be avoided by how things are written, but Turkeys failed coup is very notable in how Turkish officials have responded. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not even fine for that as they've been known to fabricate things. If a quote or for that matter anything needs a citation, and its legitimate there should be sources other than RT reporting on it. The fact that *only* RT or affiliated/similar outlets are reporting something is a pretty good indication that it's bunk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As you well know this is not the case <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it pretty much is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Dr.   K.  03:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Ukraine Govt fabricates things, Media outlets too. We still use them. RT? Take it to a board. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 05:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been taken. Multiple times. Regarding "Ukraine Govt fabricates things" - are you referring to anything specific in the article or just blowing off steam? "Media outlets too" - are you referring to a specific source being used in the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then as you know, some use of RT is fine. Ukraine? Yes I thought I would throw that in as I saw you there too. Are you following me? You pop up here after I edit SOHR, then yr at Annexation of Crimea. Its traceable and reportable. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 09:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then as you know, some use of RT is fine. Perhaps, "some use" may be fine. But not in this case because we have WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. As such, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. RT is not an exceptional source for this claim. It is not even an adequate source. We cannot use the term "alleged" to hide fringe conspiracy theories. "Alleged" should be reserved when someone reputable makes an allegation based on something that is remotely feasible. It should not be used when some weak source makes a completely unsubstantiated, fringe allegation. By using the term "alleged" based on the fringe proclamations of weak sources we legitimise fringe theories and mislead our readers.  Dr.   K.  15:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What happened here? Why are we suddenly discussing Ukraine? Let's try to take some steps back and try to summarise the content which is about the following questions in my view
 * Should unproven claims about involvement of external powers, either on the side of the Turkish government, or of the Coup leaders be included in the infobox which should present key features of the topic.
 * How much evidence, and what quality of evidence/reporting is needed to label unproven claims to be sufficiently important key issues, and are the provided claimants and the sources in which their claims are reported of sufficient standards to arrive at that conclusion? Arnoutf (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree fully with the sentiments of and, above. I've just been through the article and have removed a morass of garbage sources and text relying on it, ranging from raw YouTube clips to blogs to tabloids to Russian propaganda outlets. None of these sources are reliable or proper for creating an encyclopedic account of what transpired. We must be especially careful about sourcing given the many highly contentious claims that have circulated.
 * Yes esp contentious claims.  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also support an even more aggressive trimming of the lousy sources that remain. I encourage users to take a wack at it. Neutralitytalk 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for greatly improving this article. Your trimming of the horrible sources, to borrow VM's expression, was much needed and it sets a great editorial example for others to follow.  Dr.   K.  02:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. Agree, mainstream is best, esp on notable issues. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wauw, @Dr.K It's in my opinion not a weird image of campbell, and it's not dramatizing it either. That's your point of view, but not a fact. I have seen many sources by the article of Erdogan where they put bad images about him as well, where he looks angry for example. Yet these sources are appaerently okay? They are not neutral either. And about the newspaper making claims, i have seen an email from bbc circulating around on how they tried to find people who were speaking bad against the current Turkish government. I putted here, but they removed it again. Bbc news is not neutral or reliable either. If you look at your logic almost no sources is allowed, as actually most major sources and mainstream media are NOT independent and follow an agenda. BM Tornado (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K And why are you removing my content? If the paper Yenisafak makes such a claim, then it should be atleast mentioned with their content why they think so. Which I did. BM Tornado (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tornado as you know mainstream media covers basic stuff, it definitely not neutral often. But its safe, sort of. The most interesting stuff is often found elsewhere in alternative news. But those refs scare some people. After many months mainstream may catch up. But often not. Wikipedia is often behind in things. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dr.K And why are you removing my content? If you had read my edit summary, it's all explained there. See Close paraphrasing. Dr.   K.  16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative sources are not acceptable where they deviate from mainstream, because we have no way to distinguish between fringe theories and true information. I do agree that alternative sources often report more interesting stuff, like alien abductions, and that is exactly the reason why we do not accept such sources. Thank you SaintAviator for making the case so clearly. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I never mentioned Alternative sources: But rather alternative news sites. IMHO theres a difference. Deviating from mainstream is healthy. Meta NSA spying was once fringe. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And such information was correctly not allowed on Wikipedia until it ceased to be fringe. The problem is that something that we cannot decide whether something labelled as fringe is relevant and true, or nonsense of the type "Aliens abducted my husband". As a tertiary source we therefore err on the safe side by not allowing any fringe claims. (PS what I stated also goes for alternative news sites - in the case of my example the daily express) Arnoutf (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with mainstream is consolidated media ownership, creating an at times toxic news fixing / churnalism atmosphere. Ghouta Chemical attack & Trump & Russian DNC hack allegations are good examples of low quality horrible journalism, frenzied POV trial by mainstream media. What RT and the like can be good for is quoting western sources, mainstream avoids. You will note my edits are almost exclusively mainstream. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It only hit the West now that the coup failed
It seems some Western politicians wanted this coup to succeed and have since been trying to digest the fact that against their expectations the Turkish people rose to the occasion and bashed the coup plotters. These people simply could not accept the fact that Turkey can support its own national policies even if this meant these policies did not complement Western policies. Thus they wanted to get rid of Turkey's popular President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and they now see that he is here to stay and has grown even stronger in the eyes of the people. Please see this article for details. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Try to morph this thought into something useful for the article. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 09:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Im sorry IP, but we can not just include WP:FRINGE theories into the article, can you provide some balanced coverage other than the one source? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. (ps appreciate the civility). <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The talk page is not a place to post one's opinions or random rants. WP:NOTAFORUM. Your admonition to turn the above into "something useful" suggests you recognize that the above comment is non-constructive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take into account that a column (such as the article referred to) is almost always the personal opinion of the author, and as such does not require facts or evidence. As a consequence a column is generally only relevant as primary source for the opinion of the author. Not about the contents / target / topic of the column. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * vm when an editor stoops to deleting other editors comments that wrongdoing needs to be addressed. Stop harassing this editor. He makes some points which the article already supports. Perhaps he / she is a new editor. Dont you ever delete others comments again <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this here because I've been watching this. I'm not really a fan of removing other's comments, and certainly not entire conversations. All involved, please review WP:TPO. Timothy Joseph Wood 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, the content may be by a newbie and basic, but deleting it is not on. Also Im highly suspicious of someone like TipToe coming in out of nowhere, no history here, and doing exactly what VM did, a mass revert of comments, on a talk page. It makes me think Sock Puppet or some back channel 'calling in', of which there is history here, (on a board). Sock Puppets are an ongoing WP issue. There may be another explanation, but for now its harassment, and I may start a file on this if it goes on from these editors contributions. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GOODFAITH please. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Theres a lot of history here from the Vladimir Putin article which you dont know about. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Removing random rants from the talk page is perfectly legit. Stop trying to game this or mischaracterize it. An encyclopedia is not a forum for expressing opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right at the top of the page it says: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". The guideline it links to says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (...) This applies to (...) alk page discussions. (...) You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just saw that SaintAviator is accusing Tiptoethroughtheminefield of being my sock puppet (or vice versa). That's not just bad faithed but pretty clueless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter, especially since this is another page. Please discuss the edits, not the editors. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So has the OP's edit been addressed here? From an outside point of view this looks like boiling lava under a crust of an IP statement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind you, SaintAviator's sp accusation is quite mild on the conspiracy theory scale compared to the mountain of garbage contained in the "article" that initiate this thread! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I made two claims, maybe someones looking at them, who knows <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Was Incirlik airbase surrounded by turkish military and civilians during the coup attempt??
Was Incirlik airbase surrounded by turkish military and civilians during or after the coup attempt?? If it was infact surrounded this is very significant, and should be added to Incirlik Air Base section as there are 50? nukes housed there?

I am having trouble finding a reliable source for this and in my opinion neither RT or Sputnik is a reliable source.Sassmouth (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

After reading this http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/06/how-russia-dominates-your-twitter-feed-to-promote-lies-and-trump-too.html i do not know if anything should be added to the Incirlik airbase section. thoughtsSassmouth (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is biased
The coup attempt was carried out by Gülen Movement. Not only Erdoganists but also CHP which is Kemalist secular was against coup and accused Gülen Movement. Putting Kemalism section to background section of article is quite deceptive, it should be changed to Gülenism. During the coup attemt Kemalist soldiers convicted previously from Ergenekon Conspiracy were also kidnapped by coup plotters in Izmir. That means there were no Kemalism affliated soldiers among plotters at all. I propose to include Gülen Movement as planners of coup attempt and add sources from secular Turkish newspapers/websites such as: Hurriyet, Cumhuriyet, Odatv etc. Thanks --Abbatai 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK if sources are RS. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

US involvement and EU and NATO support should be mentioned
"FETÖ ring leader Gülen is nestled in a sprawling complex in Pennsylvania, safe under the protection of U.S. agencies, including the CIA. Turks believe that Gülen is a front man for the CIA-Pentagon network and was being used by them to overthrow the democratically elected government of Turkey... On the other hand, indifferent EU leaders and their propaganda media outlets have made the case even worse. Instead of firmly supporting the democratically elected government in Turkey, they have been overwhelmingly showing sympathy with the coup perpetrators. In the early hours of the coup both the Western leaders and their media outlets were working in unison against the government. But, later when the coup failed, these leaders quickly adjusted their tone to damage control and left their media free to demean Turkey and its leaders. Thus, there is a huge sense of Western betrayal that has now come to be deep-seated in the Turkish psyche... Since joining NATO in 1952, Turkey has undergone four successful military coups and the NATO alliance cuddled all the coup leaders with open arms - the most recent took place in 1997, also notoriously known as the post-modern coup in Turkey. Had the July 15 coup attempt succeeded, NATO would have warmly embraced the new coup criminals as they did with Egypt's Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi." See India-based international affairs analyst and columnist MOHAMMAD PERVEZ BILGRAMI's article "Turkey’s geopolitical rebalancing: An offshoot of the failed coup". -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The text above is too unstructured to make sense what it is you exactly suggest. Can you be more specific where in the article, you suggest to add what information, based on what reliable sources. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also purile garbage. All AKP-affiliated propaganda articles need to be removed (or "cleansed", to use Erdogan-speak) from this article. Wikipedia does not exist to encourage Turkish sufferers of Sevres syndrome. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sever syndrome? What are you talking about? What is the relation between this article and Sever Treaty?This is not a forum. Take your unrelated posts elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.237.237 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sèvres Syndrome. clpo13(talk) 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What the Western countries ought to do is be straightforward in their relations with others instead of being two-faced in practice, which contradicts what they defend and promote in theory. Will Wikipedia add some information from this article as well? Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is it's editors. As long as you do not propose explicit suggestions for change, at explicit places in the article, supported by a reliable (and neutral) source nothing will happen. I am not convinced Daily Sabah qualifies as such. But as long as you make no actionable suggestion that does not even matter. If you want to add something make a clear proposal, otherwise, find somewhere else to publish your opinion. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Something is mentioned already of alleged U.S.A support of the failed coup last paragraph of the intro "President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the head of United States Central Command chief General Joseph Votel[41] [42][43] of "siding with coup plotters," (after Gen. Votel accused Turkish Government of 'arresting Pentagon's contacts in Turkey'[44][45][46] ) and the Turkish government made a request to the United States to extradite Fethullah Gülen (a Turkish businessman[47][48][49][50] and cleric in self-imposed[51][52][53] exile in Pennsylvania, United States) to Turkey.[54][55][56] Erdogan accuses Gülen of being behind the coup—a claim that Gülen denies—and accused the United States of harboring him.[57][58][59]"Sassmouth (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)