Talk:2016 Turkish coup attempt/Archive 1

Syria

Keep abreast of Syrian reaction...gonna be the most important.Lihaas (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And Egypt will be crucial too.Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

[2,733,044 Syrian refugees in Turkey.] Good source information on registered refugees from Syria in prep for that portion of the article Adam Louis Marré (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian Liveblog

The Guardian, a news website, is currently liveblogging the event. Here's the link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt-military-gunfire-ankara -- Gestrid (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

'See also' deletion (Martial law)

Hi, DatGuy. Just wondering, why did you delete 'Martial law' from 'See also'? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ceanlann gorm: Whoops, sorry. Didn't realise I did that, maybe it was an edit conflict? Feel free to add it again. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done No problem, happens to us all. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Police Response

General Directorate of Security (police force) should be noted as one of the opposing forces against the coup. Beatitudinem (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beatitudinem: Sorry, but, even during fast-paced current event editing like this, we need a source. Could you provide one? -- Gestrid (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beatitudinem: and @Gestrid: I think I found a brief mention, but struggling to find out if they are calling for or against the coup "Dogan News Agency reported the national police directorate summoned all police to duty in Ankara." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3692693/Turkish-military-launch-attempted-coup-depose-government.html#ixzz4EWkL9hrZ Adam Louis Marré (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beatitudinem: and @Gestrid: Given that police are being detained and killed, is it safe to at LEAST say that Beatitudinem is correct that the police - but not necessarily the General Directorate of Security - are siding with the original Turkish government? See the picture in this link: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/gunfire-heard-jets-seen-flying-in-turkish-capital-of-ankara.html Adam Louis Marré (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Turkish police is on the side of government inside information box Adam Louis Marré (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Border closures

Turkey's borders have been closed. Perhaps include this after the sentence about Ataturk Airport closure. Media recites this fact, but cannot find sources other than Twitter...--Sirenje (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, should it be noted that martial law has been enacted and the people were given curfews? --Sirenje (talk)

Already mentioned in article, please disregard. --Sirenje (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hulusi Akar taken hostage...

Despite being mentioned as one of the commanders in the article, Hulusi Akar was taken hostage by the coup perpetrators. I have already edited this information into the article on Hulusi Akar, but should be mentioned in this article as well. --Sirenje (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Already addressed in article. Please disregard. --Sirenje (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bosphorus bridge linking

I would like to create an internal link to the article on the "Bosphorus Bridge" where it is mentioned in the article. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

German government in support

German Government in support for elected turkish government. @RegSprecher via https://twitter.com/RegSprecher/status/754097088032608256 JayAhr (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done This is already being displayed on the article. Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Helicopters being taken down

Please write that the helicopters attacket the police special forces headquarters and that they killed the 17 police officers Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-seventeen-police-officers-killed-in-helicopter-attack-on-police-special-forces-reports-a7139866.html Hadilol21 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I added it. I couldn't find any source that said what time it happened at. It seems to have happened around 2:00AM, but since I have no reliable source I did not put that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephilosopher6 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

AP Reports Bomb

AP has reported that a bomb hit the Turkish Parliament! As seen here. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Bombing was mentioned in article I believe...12 people injured in blast, but cannot find source. --Sirenje (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, media reporting two more bombs have just hit the Turkish parliament building... Source: [1] --Sirenje (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove flags

Please, PLEASE, can this article's sensible editors refrain from adding flags to the international reaction section. What we are surely aiming for is a reaction section which captures a relevant range of quotes from across the geopolitical section, not a "my country isn't there, let's include it" approach. Take the final paragraph at Killing of Jo Cox#Reactions for an example. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, no flags please. Davidcarroll (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This only serves to keep the article consistent with other pages on this wiki (Example: Reactions_to_the_2016_Nice_attack#Countries). Consistency in formatting is an important consideration in articles. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Consistency in formatting is an important consideration in articles." MOS:FLAG suggests the exact opposite. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in that, however in articles of this category (international event), most do it in this manner. Compared to the Jo Cox incident, this is likely to attract attention from a large amount of government leaders. Prose is good in most cases, however the list is growing, and could prove to become too messy if it was prose. A list however keeps things clear and organized (assuming that some sort of order is kept), which is good considering how many reactions are likely going to be added. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yall sensible is not everyone idea. Get with the real world! And find global consensusLihaas (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll consider it. But if there is not a current, relevant policy or guideline, this talk page's consensus should be respected, whichever way that goes. And I'm pretty confident it will fall on the side of whichever approach is most likely to produce the better outcome. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen

Somebody added Fethullah Gülen to the list of the coup commanders. This is not confirmed, it is only alleged by pro-Erdogan side. Therefore, either this entry should be removed, or it should be indicated that it is only alleged. 94.253.167.163 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this fall under BLP, until such time as confirmation emerges? Are edits deleting him from the list of coup commanders subject to 3RR? SS451 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It could potentially be libelous, so I would say that 3RR doesn't apply until it can be sourced properly due to BLP. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ataturk flights

It says "all flights to and from the airport have been cancelled.", but the citation is to Reuters which only mentions flights from the airport have been cancelled. Didn't see any mention stating the airport has completely closed up. 89.139.187.175 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done You're right. Thanks! -- Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Source that states all flights were cancelled and airport was shut down: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/turkey-military-blocks-bridges-istanbul-160715195444742.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirenje (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox issues

Can we remove the whole damn infobox for now and re-add it when the whole thing is over by morning? So far it's been anything but useful, and is currently open to all kinds of unacceptable POVs. An editor or two added Gulen to the coup perpetrators' column (which is clearly Turkish government POV), while another added the 17 officers killed to the government's column (which needs verification). This needs to stop. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Several different sources have reported on the death of 17 police officers. Source in article is Turkish, should be in English since it is available...--Sirenje (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources:

• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/turkey-coup-live-updates-explosion-8431256
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying-jets-and-gunfire-heard-in-ankara1/

Doesn't have to be in English but English helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether 17 officers were killed or not. I'm debating whether they belong to the government's column or coup's. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Government as they were killed by a military helicopter operated by the coup perpetrators.--Sirenje (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

TRT being taken hostage

"TRT was taken off air.[7]" --> Employees of TRT reported being "taken hostage" by the coup perpetrators prior to the shut down. Pro-government protesters retook TRT headquarters shortly after, and TRT went back on-air several hours after being shut down.

• Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying-jets-and-gunfire-heard-in-ankara1/
• Better Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-broadcaster-idUSKCN0ZW003?mod=related&channelName=worldNews

--Sirenje (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Title - "attempt" appropriate at this time?

The word "attempt" implies the coup is over and it was unsuccessful. We don't know that and the latest reports at time of this posting indicates the military has taken over news outlets. [2] I just don't know but this should be scrutinized. --Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a successful coup so far, though. They have yet to take control of the government.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we know that?--Oakshade (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball.Both coup and attempted coup imply an outcome which we can't predict. Neither are satisfactory. Personally I'd err on the side of attempt.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to various news sources (such as this one) military personnel are being driven back, and that the citizens have successfully gotten into the airport. Personally, I'd say the coup failed, but it's honestly too soon to tell. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How about "military uprising" until we know the outcome?-- OsirisV (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Media is reporting that coup is over, even reporters in Turkey are declaring. --Sirenje (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if the military coup failed the country is in chaos. Islamists are protesting in the streets against the secular Kemalists and a huge rift is opening up in turkish society formerly bridged by the AKP.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As a general note: these types of discussions are typically unproductive on articles about breaking events with little reliable coverage. The article on the events in Nice has already been moved twice, its sister reaction article three or four times, and there have been I think four renaming discussions on the first article, all of which so far have gone really nowhere. It seems like it's best to stick with whatever name works for now, and have a discussion like this after things have settled down a bit. TimothyJosephWood 00:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I like OsirisV 's suggested title, but I don't approve of changing article names too much. I suggest letting the dust settle a little bit before any renamingSmarkflea (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Col. Muharrem Kose

Col. Muharrem Kose is de commander of the part of the military that organized the coup. Other officers involved include Col. Mehmet Oguz Akkus, Maj. Erkan Agin and Lt. Col. Dogan Uysa

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying-jets-and-gunfire-heard-in-ankara1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muharrem_Kose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.160.140 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image

This article lacks an image of the coup or countercoup activities, even though it seems the social media has a lot of them. Any idea where a source of freely licensed image appropriate for Wikipedia might be found? I tried Flickr but no luck so far. HaEr48 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Erdogan location

Reports that Erdogan attempted to flee to Germany and seek asylum, but his plane was denied permission to land: http://www.eturbonews.com/72918/turkish-presidents-plane-trying-land-germany-request-denied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.60.132 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

These are unconfirmed, current (unconfirmed) reports include that he is returning to Istanbul. Davidcarroll (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Those were initial reports that were addressed in the article, now removed. Other reports have him attempting to reach Ankara. The official position of the Turkish government is that he is in a "secure location" that remains undisclosed. source --Sirenje (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a test of the theory that if you put a random claim next to the name of a news agency, and put it out there on Twitter, sooner or later other news agencies will report it as fact. I'm unaware of evidence that NBC ever made this claim, only of secondary sources reporting that they made it. And indeed, was it NBC reporting it, or someone tweeting/calling them with a second-hand rumour? In situations like this, you really need to go with news agencies that are willing to put their own names to developments.

When the BBC start quoting Reuters, the truth is that they don't really know what's going on but want to tell you what others are reporting. When the BBC reports something without stating the source, they are asserting it to be true. Same goes for every major news organisation in the world. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was the information removed that there are reports of his flight and that he's seeking asylum in various European countries? We're not judging it, we're not calling it fact, we're just stating that these reports appeared, and of course we'd have to remain neutral by also mentioning that Turkish goverment TV countered these reports by claiming him to be in safety at an unknown location. The original claim came from an MSNBC reporter who originally twittered that his network had received word of it from US military, and later that they were also broadcasting the news. Apparently, Erdogan flew from his holiday resort to either Ankara or Istanbul airport, where he gave his TV interview and probably also his FaceTime web broadcast in a backroom while waiting to be allowed into the city. When he was denied to leave the airport, his plane took off again, heading straight to Germany where he pleaded for asylum but was denied such without landing, which was the time when Turkish news outlets claimed he was hiding in safety. Then the same happened with the UK as had just happened with Germany. Sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The Daily Mirror even had their eyes on a plane with a peculiar flight route which could be Erdogan on the run: [9] It matches the supposed flight route from his holiday resort to the Turkish airport, then to Germany, hovering in the Bonn area, then across the Netherlands. This was the tracking link they used: [10] Unfortunately, the plane seems to have landed by now and is thus off the radar before I could check the link. Recent Twitter rumors say the plane has landed in Greece. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@79.242.222.168: It was not removed, the heading was renamed to discuss further his location. I moved from the duplicate section you've created at the bottom of the page, as I'm unsure how to mark up - please keep commentary on his whereabouts within the headings already established Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He is currently in Istanbul after landing at the airport. Davidcarroll (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link in case someone needs it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/military-attempts-coup-in-turkey-prime-minister-says.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=64046226&pgtype=Blogs&_r=0 Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case, that's what his own state-owned media is saying. Could well be that footage was taken during his stay at the airport before he was denied entrance into the city and his flight to Germany. Meanwhile, official Iranian news networks are reporting that he has landed with family in Tehran for some gas, heading for Qatar: [11], [12] --79.242.222.168 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

We should note that the articles you are sourcing are from 2 hours ago, whereas the articles being quoted about his current whereabouts from the same source are also stating he is at the airport: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/turkeys-prime-minister-says-military-attempted-coup-against-government/2016/07/15/1709b04a-4ac6-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_turkey-440pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

We should also note that a myriad of sources are showing that the coup-leaders have taken over CNN, and the state-controlled media. So it wouldn't be in their best interests to broadcast their competition landing at the airport right? Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He literally just appeared live on television from the airport, on the public broadcaster. Davidcarroll (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

POTUS photo here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/27716300004/in/datetaken

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Argentina's reaction

Here is the link to the Chancellor's reaction and declaration:

http://www.infobae.com/politica/2016/07/15/el-gobierno-pidio-una-solucion-pacifica-del-conflicto-en-turquia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.229.208.119 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the translation:

"LA ARGENTINA LLAMA A LA SOLUCIÓN PACÍFICA Y CONSTITUCIONAL DE LOS ACONTECIMIENTOS EN TURQUÍA:

El Gobierno Argentino sigue con atención y preocupación los acontecimientos que ocurren en Turquía, y espera que la situación se resuelva en forma pacífica, dentro del marco de los mecanismos constitucionales, el pleno funcionamiento de las instituciones y el respecto a los derechos humanos."

"ARGENTINA CALLS FOR A PEACEFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION FOR THE EVENTS THAT ARE UNFOLDING IN TURKEY:

The Argentine Government is following closely and with concern the events that are unfolding in Turkey, and hopes that the situation will be resolved peacefully, within the constitutional mechanisms, with full institutional operation and with respect for human rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.229.208.119 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

120 people arrested

at least 120 have been arrested

https://www.breakingnews.com/topic/military-action-in-turkey-2016/

Hadilol21 (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN is reporting over 750 arrests. That seems quite low. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian says the same. As of 17 minutes ago, 754 military personnel have been arrested, "among them 29 colonels and five generals. Rear Admiral Nejat Atilla Demirhan and General Memduh Hakbilen, the chief of staff of Turkey’s command for the Aegean region, are said to be among those detained." It also seems to say 250ish citizens were arrested, but that part is a little unclear to me. See the 2:10 update here. The "What we know so far" section that all came from my be helpful, by the way. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Other sources agree on a higher amount of arrests than that. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion of Michael Rubin - undue?

I feel like it's a bit undue and unnecessary, especially considering how recent the events are (wp:recentism). What are peoples thoughts on the scholarly opinion section? Hollth (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is bogus and premature, particularly coming from a source known to favour disarray and misinformation about the Middle East. The idea that these comments are "scholarly" is laughable, even if they were correct. You could dig up Einstein or ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks about the latest news, and you might get an opinion, but it won't be "scholarly". Lathamibird (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Considering that civilians clearly supported the government and were willing to die to stop the military, its self-evident that this wasn't some ukraine-style popular uprising reacting to Edrogan's policies but instead an attempted military takeover that was clearly undertaken with the (correct)assumption that the people would side with the president. All that section in this article will bring is anti-semitism. 97.127.129.253 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Date in the infobox

It this coup attempt is really over (and it seems to be the worst coup attempt ever (in terms of organization, strength, etc.), correct me with a counterexample if I'm wrong), the date in the infobox should be changed from "15 July 2016 – present" to "15 July 2016 – 16 July 2016" or "15 – 16 July 2016". 94.253.167.163 (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was that one coup attempt in either 1991 or 1993 in Russia that was so badly done that, when the military was giving a press conference, one girl stood up and asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Is this a coup d'etat"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.129.253 (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Navy

Weren't some factions of the navy on the coup's side? This should be added. Beejsterb (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Facetime

Why do we have to mention which type of videotelephony did he use? Is it relevant that it was Facetime and not Skype, googlehangout or other method? I think this should be changed.--UlisesRey 09:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UlisesRey (talk • contribs)

Not involved with these edits but it is noteworthy that he used FaceTime and I think it should remain. FaceTime uses end-to-end encryption, this is something that two journalists were arrested for using in Turkey last year. Davidcarroll (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

News article (main page) to be updated

as it speaks of 80 deads, radio news 2 hours ago said already 200, as this article tells. --Helium4 (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Kurdish nationalist PKK"

PKK is a terrorist organisation. It should be changed appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.161.190 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. This seems to dispute the neutrality of the article (PKK is NOT recognised as terrorist worldwide, only in Turkey).--176.104.110.11 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

PKK is a recognized terrorist organisation according NATO, European Union. Beshogur (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not universally regarded as a terrorist organization, read article on PKK. --Sirenje (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

International reactions

Is it time to move the international reactions (with all the associated flags) to International reactions to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt? I don't think there's much point in having them replicated here when there's a whole separate article for it.  Seagull123  Φ  11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Page has already been created with reaction by some countries. Nannadeem (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe we should wait until the deletion discussion about that article is finished?  Seagull123  Φ  13:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It'll stay. They always do (and thus, they always do). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIS correlation

Are there any topics/headings being opened about how the ISIS may be involved in this? The PM has authorized more air strikes and allowed western countries to use Turkish airspace. Is this too much speculation? Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

NYT sources citing it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/military-attempts-coup-in-turkey-prime-minister-says.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=64046226&pgtype=Blogs&_r=0 Adam Louis Marré (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the source, it doesn't really seem say much about IS, it has a couple mentions of IS, 1. Reeling from the attacks (Ataturk Airport for example), 2. that a large number of the insurgents are based at an airport that is used for attacks against IS, 3. a statement by a taxi driver about the military having to take action against Erdogan to prevent IS attacks and 4. critics blame Erdogan for enabling IS attacks by failing to prevent people travelling through Turkey to join IS in Syria. What part suggests that IS is involved in the Coup? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Internet censorship

Seeing reports that Facebook, Twitter are being blocked. Is there any secondary sources to confirm this? Davidcarroll (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/turkey-coup-live-updates-explosion-8431256#rlabs=1%20rt$category%20p$4 Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 20:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cbrittain10: Here's your second source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt-military-gunfire-ankara -- Gestrid (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/turkey-throttled-social-media-during-coup-in-evolution-of-internet-censorship-twitter-youtube-facebook --Lyuflamb (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A "secondary source", only confirms that "claims were made", that Facebook and Twitter were blocked. It does not confirm that they actually were blocked.Lathamibird (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw reports on Twitter (I know it's not reliable) from people in Turkey at the time that these were being blocked, but then again, Twitter said that "We have no reason to think we’ve been fully blocked in #Turkey, but we suspect there is an intentional slowing of our traffic in country." We'll probably have to wait for further reports later on.  Seagull123  Φ  14:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction: ongoing or not?

The article contradicts itself. The first sentence states that the coup is still ongoing while the infobox states that that it has already failed and lasted from 15 July 2016 till 16 July 2016. Also, from the rest of the article (except the first sentence) it is obvious that this attempt was an epic fail. 94.253.167.163 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Add cites

Dear Fellow Editors, Please add cites to the text. Such as: Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim has said military action was being "taken outside thechain of command" and it was an "illegal attempt" to seize power by "part of the military".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldshields11 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

It's on the article, I'm not sure who added it though, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt#Attempt at takeover: "Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım said military action was being "taken outside the chain of command" and it was an "illegal attempt" to seize power by "part of the military".[12]" Seagull123  Φ  14:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

References

2nd Army Commander Gen. Huduti was arrested http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2016/07/16/at-least-1563-pro-coup-military-personnel-detained-across-turkey source above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Akın Öztürk

Akın Öztürk is listed as a commander of the coup perpetrators...but nowhere in the references used is he mentioned. New sources need to be found. --Sirenje (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2016/07/16/at-least-1563-pro-coup-military-personnel-detained-across-turkey he is in the picture in the sourceDave8899 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

Coup perpetrators, using F-16 fighter jets, dropped two bombs near Presidential Palace in Ankara, killing 5 people. --Sirenje (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Iamoctopus (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hulusi Akar rescued, not a POW

Hulusi Akar was rescued early morning on 16 July 2016, he should not be listed as a "Prisoner of War" in the Infobox... Source: [13] --Sirenje (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Section Scholarly opinions

It is kind of fun but mostly tragic, though expected, that we have already starting to see the section Scholarly opinions quoting a person (Michael Rubin) who really doesn't care about Erdogan or how he rules, Rubin is just angry that Erdogan is very critical of Israel's policies. Now I know some people love to include such texts but the typical talking point about Turkey's foreign policy is just too much. At least, it should be presented as Rubin's opinion and not a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

161 civilians dead - Yildrim

[[14]] BBC reporting 161 civilians killed, citing PM Yildrim. Can we update death toll.109.176.197.117 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only on 15 July

The lede is incorrect. Suggestion:

"On 15 July 2016 and the following day, a coup d'état attempt " 46.212.225.18 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As currently written, the lede implies that the coup lasted a fairly long time, because of the word "ultimately." Even if you don't agree that "ultimately" connotes a somewhat lengthy coup, it is vague. The lede should say that how long the attempted coup lasted or the date it ended (about a day?; 15 or 16 July?) -- assuming that it is in fact completely over, as the article indicates. Kdammers (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did the military faction attempt a coup?

Start focusing on the why. Our readers need to know why this happened. And it must be explained clearly and succinctly in the lead. No original research. Look for sources. It is imperative that our readers understand why this faction did what they did. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And the same goes not only for why did they attempt it, but also why did they attempt it so amateurishly. This is the most confusing part of the story. 94.253.167.163 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason stated by some of the coup participants on TV is already known and RS'd. The reason according to Erdogan has (I think) also been stated. The reason according to the Turkish legal system will presumably take weeks or months to establish, and given the dramatic sudden changes in the judiciary, might be considered as dubious by historians. The reasons according to careful analysis based on all the available documentary and other concrete evidence by historians with reputations for careful analysis, and NPOVed according to a mix of historians from different countries and biases, could take years.

So IMHO it's unrealistic to expect that this Wikipedia article will provide "why this happened" (beyond what is already stated in many places in the article) on anything less than a month/year time scale. We're an encyclopedia. Real knowledge is not produced on a Twitter time scale, and can't be documented encyclopedically before it's produced upstream. Boud (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

Remove the sentence "It was the fifth coup attempt in Turkey's history, the first being in 1960, but the 2016 coup was the first to fail." It is unsourced and completely wrong. There have been numerous other failed coup attempts in Turkey's history, most notably by Talat Aydemir (tr) who was hanged in 1964 after his coup attempt failed. It is hard to put an exact total number, since what constitutes a coup attempt is dubious (are military memorandums counted as coup attemps, etc.)

5.47.24.199 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done Cannot find "fifth coup" in article. Assume the sentence has been removed or reworded. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Failure of coup section grammar

This whole excerpt: "Seven military personnel, who have removed all the badges and insignia from their uniforms,[79][80] and a civilian on board were arrested after landing for illegal entry into the country and transferred to the local police station, while the helicopter was guarded at the airport by the Greek authorities. Later turned out that all were military personnel." does not seem to follow proper grammatical syntax. This article is protected, and I don't feel comfortable editing this anyways. Would anyone like to rewrite this?

 Done by someone else. Gre regiment (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

The Turkish coup is ongoing. It is going to continue. The coup hasn't fail. The coup was for human rights, secularism, and democracy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/16/aftermath-of-turkish-coup-attempt-will-be-bloody-and-repressive Allansnackbar (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, clearly not covered by the sources available. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Curfew imposed by the military

if there was one, when it was broadcasted for the ankaras citizen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.41.3.21 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone has confused themselves and kept using 12 am instead of 12 pm so everything in the text is now fluctuating between 1 pm 12 am and 1 am

Someone fix :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.228.57 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Analysis section

Please move the "Conspiracy theories" subsection below "Scholarly opinions". Surely the opinions of noted scholars are more important and relevant than random conspiracy theories. 93.32.78.20 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks, good point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Name of alleged coup leader

About this revert [15]: it is certainly "sourced" that a certain colonel has been claimed by Turkish media to have been the leader of the coup, but nothing in all this coverage is solid enough that it would be responsible for us to take such a claim at face value and report it in the infobox, where it cannot be properly hedged and explained and will therefore always carry the implication of being fact. As long as so little is reliably known about the actual backgrounds, I'm going to remove this again and treat it as a matter of WP:BLP enforcement, so don't reinstate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: please note that by now, Turkish authorities have named a number of other individuals, including several higher-ranking ones, as "leaders", so the status of this original claim appears still doubtful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Casualty sources

Let's use this section to track articles for casualties:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt-military-gunfire-Ankara

Adam Louis Marré (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

404 error - page not found ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Asylum request in Germany

NBC reported —citing a US military source— that Erdoğan sought asylum in Germany, and that it was denied. Has any government official confirmed or rejected this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.101.62.228 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@148.101.62.228: Could you provide a link to the NBC report please? That would help us a great deal, thanks!  Seagull123  Φ  17:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seagull123: It was apparently said on live TV, I've only found references to it in several news outlets: [16] [17] [18].

Reddit user's comment

In the Conspiracy theories section, the comment of a Reddit user is included, now I'm sure it's insightful, but I thought it's general custom on Wikipedia to only include comments from people specialising in that field (political analyst/journalist) or people in authority (heads of government/state). Should this be removed? Personally, I think that if it is included, there will be no distinctions in whose comments are included, making it WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Seagull123  Φ  17:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's gone. That was not suited to inclusion. It's true that it's reported by a secondary sources, so we are not quoting the Reddit post as a primary source, but the secondary source gives examples of various post, and the choice of quoting this one verbatim is arbitrary and clearly WP:UNDUE. LjL (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Pro-government casualties section

I'm confused. There's now an alleged 160+ dead on the pro-government side but still only the specification of a certain number of soldiers and police? Is it just a matter of the specfics not having been updated? 70.27.162.84 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The word "allegedly" should appear in the first parahraph

The first paragraph says that "an unsuccessful coup d'état was staged by a faction within the Turkish Armed Forces - under the leadership of Turkish Peace Council - in an attempt to oust Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government". I think the word "alleged" (and its synonyms) should be added between "an" and "unsuccessful" ("an alleged unsuccessful coup...") "staged" and "by" ("...Was staged, ostensibly, by a faction...") and "in" and "an" ("... In an alleged attempt to oust Turkish..."). That is because I really don't think any of us can currently be as certain as it gets that this was not a "fake coup". I usually don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this one... It's actually not a conspiracy theory, all we have against it is the word of a semi-authoritarian regimen which will gain tremendously from this alleged attempt. Thus, the option that this was a fake attempt is not unreasonable and therefore I do not think that an encyclopedia should rule it out by telling a different story in the first paragraph without the use of words like "allegedly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.170.215 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. This won't happen, since we stick to what our reliable sources say. All mainstream foreign media are still covering this as a genuine coup, and treat the conspiracy theories as that, conspiracy theories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox coverage - conspiracy and allegation

Under "Commanders and leaders", reads "Government of Turkey (self-staged, allegation)", with sources including RedState and others reporting on Bekir Coskun's claims. I find this truly bizarre. Should the page on the September 11 attacks also include "United States Government (false flag, allegation)"? By all means include information about the conspiracy theory allegations, but to give them such prominence on the page feels very wrong. -- GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note that there are conspiracy theories over the USS Liberty incident but {{infobox military conflict}} used on that page gives only the mainstream coverage of the belligerent, with a note. -- Callinus (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

The below sentence in the domestic subsection of third-party reactions raises an eyebrow

"Reportedly, no government officials were arrested or harmed during the attempted coup, which—among other factors—raised the suspicion of a false flag event staged by the Turkish government itself to crack down on the opposition."

Is this fact? This is the first mention of any conspiracy theory, and quotes some fairly questionable and contradictory. The VOX article even says itself that it's unlikely this was a conspiracy.

Would appreciate some input, but I think the section should be removed Situphobos (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not a fact, but well sourced comments on the subject. What is happening are mass arrests prior to making any investigations and blaming many different people of being leaders of the coup, apparently without any evidence. In a wide historical context, the arrests/dismissals of judges only make sense if someone wants to prepare show trials for conviction of the military and opposition. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen media state that there are suggestions of it being a false flag. That specific piece of information is not something I've read outside of wikipedia though. It's important to note that the media does not say it is a false flag, only that there have been suggestions it possibly is. Hollth (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Peace Council

Two things about this. a) I can't find this name anywhere. b) Even if this is the name, I feel like it's a little undue for the lead.

For a) - In the sources linked, both said a " 'peace council' would run the country " . They do not say the group is called 'Turkish Peace Council'. I did find a BBC article or two that called them 'Peace at Home Council', so it may just be a matter of differing translations. However, these are few and far between and most are now default to not using the name. Which brings me to...

b) It's a group that previously did not exist (and no longer does anymore) so could be explained without the added hassle of giving the group a name. It's naming something for the sake of having a name. This is backed by none of the media I can find now using the name. Instead they simply say it was a faction of the military. We could do exactly the same and lose no explanatory or descriptive power within the lead.

I feel like the inclusion of the name in the lead is wp:undue and, based on the amount of RS I can now find using the term, an example of wp:recentism. Thoughts? Hollth (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of Erdoğan

The image of Erdoğan in the article can be misleading since the caption reads president but the image is from the times as he was prime minister ("Başbakanlık" "Prime Ministry" on the stand). At Commons, there exists an image of him as president. CeeGee 05:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily matter when the image was taken, as long as it is an image that can identify him as Erdoğan. --Sirenje (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

curfew

.[50] Aynı zamanda askerler tarafından zapt altına alınan TRT ekranlarında Tijen Karaş tarafından Yurtta Sulh Konseyi adına darbe bildirisi okundu[51] ve bunu Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin resmî internet sitesinden yapılan sıkıyönetim ilanı ile sokağa çıkma yasağı takip etti.[52][53] where was transmited about the curfew? 12:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachum (talk • contribs)

A curfew was put in place by the coup forces, but protesters actively defied it. Source: [19] --Sirenje (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox update

"Additional purges continued on 18 July 2016. The Turkish government suspended 8,777 government officials across the country for alleged links to the coup perpetrators. Among those suspended include 7,899 police officers, 614 gendarmerie officers, 47 district governors and 30 regional governors.[120]"

Please could you include these figures with the other arrested in the info box. Akincihan1 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of them being arrested in sources, but I will add them to the infobox as suspended for the time being. --Sirenje (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The source says they were suspended on the suspicion of links to the coup. Which means it hasn't definitely been proven they were in fact directly involved in the coup. Putting it in the infobox implies just this. So, if it is proven they were in fact involved we add them. But until then its best to leave it just in the main body of the text. EkoGraf (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Attribution in the false flag section

I apologize, but I've shotgunned this section with inline who tags. There's a lot of "some skeptics", "many commentators", "several politicians" and the like throughout. Statements, beliefs and opinions should be attributed to whomever said, believed, or thought them and not to an anonymous group. This can easily give them impression that information from one or a few individuals is somehow representative of a larger group or general public opinion, and thus give a false sense of importance.

If we cannot attribute who the several, some, or many people are, then we should remove the statement and replace it with who, in particular, the information comes from. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, most notably, Gulen himself. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I think it is reasonable enough to use a 'tagging shotgun' in the section, considering that many of the references cited are in Turkish. How are non-Turkish speaking editors supposed to do some co-editing around here? This is the English part of Wikipedia! I have not been able to find anything in the WP List of guidelines about a situation like this. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WEASEL pretty well cover that these kinds of vague non-attributions are not appropriate, especially on something as controversial and potentially WP:FRINGE as accusing a government of engineering a coup attempt under a false flag. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

On 16 July 2016, anti-government rebels seized a frigate from the Gölcük Naval Base, taking Fleet Commander Veysel Kösele hostage. Veysel Kösele was later released and the seized frigate was returned by the anti-government group, the frigate identified as the TCG Yavuz (F-240).

Several top officials of the Turkish Air Force, including commander Gen. Abidin Ünal, were captured by coup perpetrators in Istanbul on July 15. --Sirenje (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Side-note: Second paragraph can be included after the mention of Gen. Hulusi Akar being taken hostage. I think it would be best to change this sentence in the article: "Some hostages were taken at military headquarters, including the Turkish Chief of the General Staff Hulusi Akar" to "Some hostages were taken at military headquarters, including the Turkish Chief of the General Staff Hulusi Akar, while other top officials from the Turkish Air Force, including Air Force Commander General Abidin Ünal, were abducted during a wedding in Istanbul.

References

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinking of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is wikilinked far too often. Per MOS:DUPLINK, generally only the first appearance should be linked. Please remove the wikilinking from all subsequent appearances. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I cut down the number of wikilinks to 2, one in the introductory paragraph and one in the infobox. I think that would suffice. --Sirenje (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sirenje: Thank you That's perfect. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Backdrop of corruption in lead-up to coup attempt

In this Newsweek opinion piece from four months ago, it was alleged that corruption was "rife" in Erdoğan's Turkey. When factoring in Erdoğan's dismissal of the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey as a "judicial coup" by those jealous of his success, shouldn't corruption be mentioned as a backdrop to the conditions in Turkey in the lead-up to the coup d'état attempt ? --maslowsneeds🌈 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This report published by The Guardian offers this observation about the role of corruption in the conditions that led-up to the coup attempt :

"The centre of growing tension in recent years between the Gülenists, Erdoğan and the AKP has been Erdoğan’s blaming of Gülenists in the police and judiciary for anti-corruption allegations in 2013 that targeted senior supporters of the president, including his son Bilal."

The corruption allegations that preceded the coup attempt are absent from the Background section of the article. It's also noteworthy that there are other conditions noted in The Guardian report. --maslowsneeds🌈 19:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This report in POLITICO noted the role of corruption as a reason for the coup :

"By their own rhetoric, the coup leaders pointed to corruption and the threat to Turkey’s secularism as reasons for their actions. These are concerns widely shared among elements of the Turkish public, and these sentiments will persist even as the coup itself is rightly condemned as an attack on the principles of democracy." --maslowsneeds🌈 16:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that there has been no objection, I will add a subsection dedicated to corruption under Background from the links I've provided here. --maslowsneeds🌈 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Who?

Hi, I would like to ask if it is allowed to ad more "who" content to the false flag theories as an admin reverted my changes. Most of these sources were not in English and in this article it is not mentioned which sceptics or journalists said the claims. BM Tornado (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I also cannot find any of these imaginary journalists and sceptics that are mentioned. The sources are unreliable and most of them just redirect to tweets of people claiming false flags. Akincihan1 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean, so I find it pretty wierd to see why my edits so were undone.. Can it be please set back? As the reader needs clearness. @Akincihan1 BM Tornado (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit this page. Can admin lend a hand please. Akincihan1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you not allowed to edit it may I ask? @Akincihan1 BM Tornado (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes can an Admin please look at the matters please.BM Tornado (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Turns out I can now. It was giving me a message saying the page is protected before. It may have been due to insufficient contributions. Akincihan1 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph on the main page.

The last paragraph on the main page is highly biased and suggests that the coup was a false flag. The sources given were from Sözcü newspaper which is a very biased newspaper and is not a credible source. It also suggests that there were no interferences to pro-government TV, this is false as TRT had a pirate broadcast and Beyaz TV was off air all night, CNN was also taken down AFTER interviewing Erdoğan live. Military aircraft also fired at Türksat to attempt to stop all broadcasts. No credible or official sources, organisations or governments support or make a claim that this was a false flag. Suggesting that this was a hoax is a conspiracy theory and has no place on the main page of this wiki and to be presented as the truth. These are very subjective sentences and completely biased opinions.

Please remove this paragraph or put it under a new heading as 'Conspiracy Theories'. Akincihan1 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Source 30 is a website that simply quotes a tweet and provides a so called 'statement' from Deniz Baykal without a source. 31 is literally 7 sentences of somebody saying it was fake on a website filled with spam adverts. 32 is again quoting somebodies opinion. 33 is an news article with one paragraph that quotes somebody that thinks it was a hoax. 34 is a list of tweets of people who think it was a hoax. 35 is from the biased newspaper Sözcü. 36 is titled 'the popular conspiracy theory..." and source 37 is a page with something quoted from a Facebook post. As you can see none of these sources are credible or worthy of being on the page except for under the conspiracy theory subpage. Please check for yourself these sources and remove the paragraph. Akincihan1 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"that the events were largely confined to Ankara and İstanbul only, that no members of the government or MPs were taken hostage and that pro-government media outlets were not obstructed from broadcasting live during the events all led to doubts about the authenticity of the coup attempt, with many journalists and opposition politicians branding it as a 'tragic comedy' and a 'theatre play'." The illegitimate sources dont even support these claims. Everything in this paragraph is a lie. 1. The large concentration in Istanbul and Ankara is because of the fact that these are the biggest cities and the capital city, there were events all over the country and this does not suggest a hoax. 2. The pariliament was attacked, the presidents palace was attacked, central intelligence agency hq was attacked and the presidents hotel was attacked which means that MPs were not immune from this coup. 3. Pro government media outlets WERE attacked. Most notibly TRT and Beyaz haber. Turksat was also attacked as a last resort. 4. There were not many politicans or journalists who claim this was a hoax. Infact I couldn't find any legitimate politicians or journalists who made this claim. This claim was only made by anti Erdoğan people and is an unrecognised conspiracy theory. None of the sources even support this post and the sources are an illegitmate mix of tweets, facebook posts and clickbait websites. Akincihan1 (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here to say this. The lead section should be for summary of the events. Conspiracy or false flag theories are nowhere near mainstream (the paragraph cited one former opposition leader as proponent, and various social media users) and in my opinion should not be represented in the lead section. If there are reliable sources for it, it should go to a specific section down the page (e.g. currently there is a "Conspiracy section" under "Analysis". HaEr48 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I came to say this too. Conspiracy theories shouldn't be given too much weight, and hence shouldn't be in the lead. We should cover them later in the article. I will go ahead and move it there for now. But if anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear why.VR _talk 00:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)