Talk:Peace at Home Council

Rename
I think the article should be renamed. Because "Turkish Peace Council" is not the exact translation for the Junta's original Turkish name "Yurtta Sulh Konseyi". "Council for Peace at Home" or "Homeland Peace Council" would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.188.10 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Existence of subject not yet RS'd
The BBC source cited doesn't give detailed claims of the Turkish Peace Council really existing, it only refers to a verbal TV statement by an unnamed person, uses lower case "peace council", and gives no further details. The Guardian article Indymedia-type live feed attributes aims to "Armed forces", not to "Turkish Peace Council". So this article is a bit premature - a merge and redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt would probably be justified until there are sufficient details to start a proper WP:stub. Boud (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Minor correction. Boud (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

turkish-language version - names of would-be members?
tr:Yurtta Sulh Konseyi has a list of red links that look like names: "Muharrem Köse, Mehmet Oğuz Akkuş, Erkan Ağın ve Doğan Uysal". The source appears to be: http://t24.com.tr/haber/aa-darbeyi-planlayan-albay-muharrem-kose,350193 Someone who knows turkish might wish to help... Boud (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete it
The article says it has been nominated for deletion. IMO this shouldn't go ahead. This coup will likely change the entirety of the Turkish government and geopolitics in the region. While it could use expanding, it shouldn't be deleted. PromethiumElemental (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)PromethiumElemental

-yeah why should it be deleted its? The article would lack an other side it makes absolutely no sense--Crossswords (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What is here that is not covered in the main article? Hollth (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename
Analysis regarding Peace at Home Council might be a better name for the article.

I can not see that much more is certain, except that a some soldiers went to the headquarters of broadcaster TRT, and allegedly that is the reason why one reporter read the statement. Burst of unj (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

names BLP violation?
Since the whole country is on lockdown and purging, isn't posting the names of private individuals without a wiki bio a BLP violation?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

YES: These are Unsubstantiated absurd allegations
In the aftermath of the coup attempt, several government critics alleged that the creation of the Council had been staged to invoke greater support for the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), with some sceptics citing the lack of any solid information on the Council's actual composition as evidence that the entire ordeal had been faked by the government.

You should make an explanation on:
Why should the government give orders to some soldiers to kill 240 civilians, and then why should they condemn those who did this killings to death? Are all these generals stupid to enter into such an action and obey to this kind of ridiculous orders? That's why theses are Unsubstantiated absurd allegations 71.191.3.250 (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to provide an explanation for these Unsubstantiated absurd allegations

71.191.3.250 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideological Discussions
There are no expressed sources for Kemalism statement and none of the valid sources discuss Peace at Home Council's Gulenist ideals. The Council's members are well known with their links to Fetullah Gulen and many of the captured officers admitted the origin of the order. Please don't use invalid arguments to revert and try to edit with valid sources and arguments instead. I must offer you to use sources that are not related to Gulenist movement to contribute the page without any kind of propagandas. BerkBerk68 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See here one of non gulenist source says kemalist []. But we can change kemalist to alleged or disputed because of no real proof if it was gulenist coup or kemalist coup. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shadow4dark Okay, I'll do that. Thanks for cooperating. BerkBerk68 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)