Talk:Hakan Fidan

NATO
I removed the claim that this was a NATO thing; the cite, starts off by saying "It has been revealed that NATO has been planning a false flag attack against Turkey to justify the Turkish invasion of northern Syria, the International Business Times reported in its article, “Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria ‘War’ Conversation Between Erdogan Officials.”", except that the IBT article linked,, says nothing about NATO. They're also partnered with Stop NATO, which makes them a very non-neutral source, and have a disclaimer at the bottom, "Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.", making this an unedited source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of the disclaimer making the source a non-source, that disclaimer is standard (and logical) legalese for any kind of publication, including scholarly journals. Btw, it probably is POV to consider sources as non-sources on the basis of the organizational affiliations of the publisher. PS. wikipedia article on Globalresearch.ca. (I don't personally care nor have an opinion on this nato issue; this comment is just for the record.) Mehmetaergun (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I grabbed a National Geographic, and could find no such disclaimer. My local newspaper doesn't have one, either. Scholarly journals, maybe, but news sources stand by their articles. Likewise, news sources try to appear neutral; you won't find a legitimate news source that proclaims a connection to an advocacy group like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note: I am not arguing about your edit of the wiki page but the approach you take.) Re: the disclaimer: the (legal) language changes from one publication to the other and is usually in the fine print. E.g. for New York Times, see item 5.2 at their terms of service. Re: affiliations, again, for example, for New York Times, let alone affiliation, it is owned (afaik) in part by R. Murdoch. Anyhow, organizational affiliations are also common for news agencies and non-profit publishing houses since those provide advantages such as funding, syndication (author sharing, article sharing), increases in presence and diversity of audience, and so on. For instance, The Guardian is partially funded by Open Society Foundation (which has political goals --Stop NATO does too) for its reports on riots. Another example would be Signs, a world-renowned scholarly journal, known for its high quality and reliability: it is a feminist journal. As for National Geographic, their terms of service states (caps/emphasis not mine) "THE INFORMATION, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OFFERED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE AND ANY THIRD-PARTY SITES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED." Furthermore, NG is notorious for its past collaboration with colonial projects, usually approaches its subject matter from a "discovery" (conquest) pov, and has been harshly criticized by postcolonial scholars for its political agendas and propaganda. I'm sure interesting past and present organizational affiliations can be found through its wikipedia page or its about page. The point being, if you dig deep enough, and/or if one applies the criteria of  + , all news sources are non-sources unless their affiliations and disclaimers are invisible / agreeable to you. Mehmetaergun (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the Controversies section
There is only one source and it is unreliable. It also adds no further explanation of the controversy. I suggest removing the section until more relaible sources are added. Katakana546 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity
There is a sentence: "Hakan Fidan whose ethnic origin is Iran"

"Iran" is not an ethnicity. I have seen many journalists refer to him as of Kurdish origins, from Wan. But I do not know the details. All I know is that "Iran" is not an ethnicity nor does the claim have any sourcing. 92.40.214.255 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)