Jump to content

Talk:1980 Turkish coup d'état

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confused

[edit]

"Following the coup in Colonel Türkeş's indictment, the Turkish press revealed the close links maintained by the MHP with security forces as well as organized crime involved in drug trade, which financed in return weapons and the activities of hired fascist commandos all over the country." Almost exactly the same phrase can be found in an article who says that a Turkish journalist revealed this in 2003. Here it seems like the Turkish press revealed this shortly after the coup and Türkeş's indictment, the time period of the close links maintained between the the MHP and the security forces is not clear here.

Wikify

[edit]

I have done some wikification on this article, but I think it needs to be reviewed by someone with a reasonable knowledge of Turkish history. --rbrwr± 13:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

[edit]

The article, with its current version, is nothing but just a bit of ultra-leftwing commentry on 12 Eylül (12th of Sep. in Turkish). The NPOV problem begins with the first sentence: "General Kenan Evren, chief of Counter-Guerrilla, the Turkish branch of Gladio, on September 12, 1980" Should an uninformed reader know the fact that Kenan Evren was the chief of the general staff of the time, or should s/he know that he is considered as the head of that gladio thing firstly? I personally think that K.E. was a poor, thirty third class third-world dictator, junta leader, and human-rights violator; but this is an opinion, not something that I could present to the entire world as what the actual truth of the event was like. Also, following lines about the Kurdish question have virtually nothing to do with 12 Eylül. I was planning to make some editing but the "base" is so fraudulent that you simply cannot construct healthy "floors" on it. Maybe it requires a rewrite, dunno Okan 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladio

[edit]

I agree with the NPOV above. Especially the Gladio references seem shaky to me (I admit they look sexy for generating an international curiosity). There are some references given about these at the end of the article but I am not sure how reliable they are. I don't feel qualified enough to judge them but at least I know enough that they deserve a closer look to pass Wikipedia standards for such controversies. Pembeci 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind the Gladio business does not belong here. It is part of a separate discussion that nowadays would carry the headline deeep State ("derin devlet") and in the 1970s was discussed as the Turkish form of counter-guerilla ("kontr-gerilla"). I've "cleaned" the intro, but left references that I am unable to challenge (don't have these books), even though I'm uncertain whether they are "correct" (related) quotes or not.

The military coup of 1980 deserves a well informed entry since it had so many impacts on society and history in Turkey. An edit of the rest of the page might request an even more radical approach (including suggestion of new items) because at this place only the general issue that I could term "new formation of society" should be the focus.--Sc.helm 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clean-up Sc.helm. I've continued a bit your job, mainly removing redundances. A nice thing to do would be for someone who is more familiar than me with Turkish politics to add political membership and orientation of the cited politicians, and dates of events (Provide context for the reader: not only consider that foreigners are going to read the article, but also that Wikipedia is very broad public, and also read by high-school teenagers - and older people who don't necessarily remember such basics facts as that Carter was elected in 1979... News style requires to always add function and title to a name when first cited).


Concerning the deep state, Gladio (i.e. Counter-Guerrilla), etc., D. Ganser, researcher at the ETH Zurich Institute and leading specialist on Gladio (as well as author of a doctorate thesis on the subject, from which his book is issued), I think he is reliable enough and, beside, his statements concerning Grey Wolves, Abdullah Catli, etc., are cross-referenced in this article by Turkish sources, Le Monde diplomatique (a respected monthly), etc. I don't think there's any problem either for US support of the coup. If you are interested by the subject, I suggest you to have a passing look at the Gladio entry, at the Italian parliamentary commission on Gladio's involvement in the strategy of tension (notably Milan magistrate Guido Salvini's investigations), which have included false flag bombings and attacks (a non-exhaustive list: 1972 Peteano attack; 1973 attempted assassination of former (Christian Democrat) Interior Minister Mariano Rumor, 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, 1980 Bologna massacre... Italy also has suffered from a low-intensity conflict through-out the Cold War, and was also considered a strategic country by Washington). Gladio's existence has been recognized by the US State Dept. - although it, of course, denies having supported coups or others strategy of tension). Further information on the subject can be found on Daniele Ganser's website (list of newspaper articles in English, Turkish, German, French, etc.), on the ETH website (which, beside, also host research material on Stasi, and the Warsaw Pact if someones has doubt about its neutrality and scholarly aspect.) Switzerland and Belgium have also had parliamentary inquiries on the matter. Cheers Tazmaniacs 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an effort that you put into the whole affair and thanks for the tipps for improvement. I still believe that the whole Gladio business does not belong here. It is dealt with in other sections such as deep state and Counter-Guerrilla and can be discussed there. Gladio (or whatever name you prefer) was active before and after the coup and not the central figure of it (or would you believe that?).

A lot of statements were added in, in order to convince readers that the Turkish Army was evil for doing this coup d'etat. They are trying to make it seem like they had a conspiracy of destroying terrorists through terrorism, which is a false notion invented by the PKK itself and still continues today. Please do not allow PKK (a known world terrorist organization) propagandists to write in this wikipedia article and ruin the neutral point of view by adding statements like "[The counter-guerrilla murdered and tortured thousands]" when there is no evidence supporting such statements. This is propaganda and should not be allowed in wikipedia especially in an unrelated article like this. Arsenic99 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is going to quote sources in Ganser without actually having read the original, they must say so. In one case I found a citation of the third degree; this is pathetically weak. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

As a working theses I would say that the coup of 1960 was directed against a political party (single party rule); the coup of 1971 was directed at the government (and growing opposition), but the military coup of 1980 was directed against the whole society with the aim of creating a complete new order.

The entry should be structured accordingly:

  1. Introduction (dates and main features of the coup)
  2. Context (background): reasons for the intervention such as instability, violence etc.
    1. Persecution and political trials might be a separate issue
  3. New Order
    1. The Constitution
    2. New legislation: 669 new laws and 139 decrees with the power of law were passed until 6 December 1983
    3. Heritage: Laws that still exist such as the Law on Political Parties (still not allowed to use the Kurdish language in their work) while the ban on broadcasting was abolished in 1991...

These are just examples of what might be mentioned here. Yet, these are radical suggestions since much of what is mentioned at the moment does not really fit into this concept. What do you think? --Sc.helm 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go for it! As you've seen, as the article was not in a great shape, you can only improve it. Just concerning Counter-Guerrilla and such "details" that it was alleged to reside in the DIA headquarters; or the circumstances of the Taksim Square massacre, during which thousands of policemen did not intervene while snipers shot on the masses (1st May, 1977); that the snipers shot from a building owned by the ITT - what a coincidence, isn't it? Four years earlier, Pinochet's coup was financed by ITT, wasn't it? Another, so "strange", coincidence, is the 1973 Ezeiza massacre: snipers hidden under Peron's tribune shot on the left-wing Peronists, putting a definitive end to the ambiguity of the Peronism movement which gathered from the far-right to the far-left. Sure, you might respond me: what's the relation? It is, that again, I am not a favourite of a conspirational reading of history, as that would be first assuming that: someone, or a little group, has the power to control events much more than anyone really can; and that the actions of other people do not count. So, of course, I agree with you in saying that "Gladio wasn't central", if by that you mean that the coup was (not) made by "Gladio" on its own. That's for sure. They are people in Turkey [sic], living by their own, fighting between themselves, and they don't need any American to do a coup for them. But... if it is very naive to put too much weight to the influence of "deep state" and "Counter-Guerrilla" in this coup (which very well lived before & after the coup - no one contest that: the claim is that they supported this coup, and the violence before. Note that the Italian neofascists followed the same strategy, unsuccessfully - see Vincenzo Vinciguerra's declarations to the judges); but it is also naive to think that they had no influence and just represent some kind of folklore stories good enough to scare your kid... To conclude: if you think another structure for the article is better, go for it! The article definitively needs details and more about its legacy. And the facts that it doesn't speak enough about the specifically Turkish dimension gives it a conspirational aspect which it does not deserve. But I do think that the international context (i.e. Cold War) should be taken into account, and this means taking seriously CIA's (and others intelligence agencies, it seems)'s support for it. That's why Counter-Guerrilla should remained included here - although they're not American puppets, I doubt they could have supported and act in favour of a coup if the US were really opposed to it. Finally, Carter's statement is most surprising for those who put too much trust in the Nixon/Carter division (the bad guy - Pinochet, Argentina, etc./the good guy ; and then Reagan: the Contras, and a fresh start for the Cold War). Carter might honestly have wanted to stop a bit the abuses and put some reins in "his boys", but it seems that the situation in Turkey was too "uncontrollable" for him to stop "his boys" over there... Tazmaniacs 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled on that:
In 2000, General Gianadelio Maletti, in charge of the SID Italian intelligence agency from 1971 to 1975, 
was convicted in absentia for obstruction of justice concerning the Mariano Rumor case. The investigations
revealed that he had known of the attack before-hand, but had deliberately failed to prevent it. Testifying in 2001
for the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, he declared:
""The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], following the directives of its government, wanted to create an Italian
nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left and, for this purpose, it may have made use of
rightwing terrorism... I believe this is what happened in other countries as well...Don't forget that 
Nixon was in charge and Nixon was a strange man, a very intelligent politician but a man of rather
unorthodox initiatives"<ref name="WillanCIA">Philip Willan, ''[[The Guardian]]'', March 26, 2001.
  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,462976,00.html Terrorists 'helped by CIA' to stop rise of left
  in Italy] {{en icon}}</ref>

Not so many countries where stay-behind movements have been active and promoted terrorism... Tazmaniacs 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That damn warmongering Carter. He should be tried for crimes against humanity. 65.185.190.240 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy of Tension

[edit]

This article seems to say that the military and Evren purposely instigated violence in order to justify a coup by them. While I'm sure some people think that, it is by no means the mainstream view (as far as am aware). I think that needs to be rewritten. Also if anyone knows, I think we need clarification of when Evren was counter-Guerrilla head with an appropriate source to back it up. ----Jones89 (talk · contribs)

Harmonization

[edit]

Someone wanted the Prelude to be harmonized with Right-wing and left-wing armed conflicts (Republic of Turkey). I would rather suppose that the other page is deleted (reasons on the other talk page) --Sc.helm (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It probably got spun out to keep the article length manageable (cf. WP:Summary style). --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on American involvement is unclear

[edit]

The section on American involvement is very unclear as to whether the coup was organized with U.S. assistance or that the U.S. was merely informed of it beforehand. If it is the former than more details certainly need to be added.

Also, the paragraph regarding the Grey Wolves and the Kurdish war is contradicted by our own Grey Wolves article which states that "However, after being useful for Kenan Evren's strategy of tension, the leader of the Counter-Guerrilla turned president outlawed the MHP and the Grey Wolves. Colonel Türkeş and other Grey Wolves were arrested." Later, amnesty was granted, but what evidence is there to suggest that they were still affiliated with the CIA post-1980? Even so, what relevance does it have to this specific article? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

false-flag

[edit]

I cut out the accusation that the U.S. was running a network in Turkey to do false-flag attacks. There was no evidence to support it. The whole idea that Americans would know how to manipulate Turkish politics is ridiculous. There needs to be a lot more citations here before you can go from Italians killing Italians in Italy to Americans killing Turks in Turkey.

Maybe there's just a lot of confusion because the CIA was accused of supporting the ASALA in Lebanon in the 1950s and the Kurdish guerillas in Iraq in the 1970s? Maybe they secretly control all the leftists in Turkey!

Abu America (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits and added necessary references there in. The necessary evidence for these facts are well referened inside the text but still I have fixed your POV related issue and added supporting references. Please do not remove referenced material. Aadagger (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please use reliable sources. I've removed it again and created a comment inside the edit text explaining the problems with the sources. The only reliable sources used are used to support events which occurred. The sources which attempt to link those events to the Americans are:

The sources used to link these events to the Americans are questionable: Kurdistan Times; Tallatturhan.com; candunder.com; A book by "Daniel Ganser" called NATO's Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe I don't see how anyone could consider these as 'reliable sources' for an 'extra-ordinary claim.' Grant bud (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the sources. A renowned journalist, a researcher, an ex-Turkish army officer, an ex-grey wolf militant (a conversation with him in a respected national newspaper). Everything is appropraite with respect to wikipedia policies. Aadagger (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources ( A renowned journalist, a researcher, an ex-Turkish army officer, an ex-grey wolf militant (a conversation with him in a respected national newspaper) are not questions, nor the facts presented there. Both those talk about specific events. Its teh sources used to link the mentioned events to the Americans that I question.

Grant bud (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated info and biased references

[edit]

The sections below include unsubstantiated information and biased references:

- "The 1970s were marked by right-wing/left-wing armed conflicts, often proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively.[1] To create a pretext for a decisive intervention, the Turkish military allowed the conflicts to escalate ;[2][3]"

The references provided here are not academic articles but commentaries from newspapers that are openly critical of the 1980 intervention. References from neutral and/or academic sources are necessary.

- "The violence abruptly stopped afterwards,[6]"

This is also based on a commentary of a newspaper columnist. This commonly voiced assertion is actually rebutted in a scholarly article: "It was reported that from 12 September 1980 to 11 February 1982, 330 people, including 66 members of the security forces, lost their lives in terrorist events." Taner Demirel (2003), “The Turkish Military’s Decision to Intervene: 12 September 1980,” Armed Forces & Society 29: 2, pp. 253-280, at 278. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.144.52 (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section on American involvment is false, miscited and mistranslated

[edit]

I checked the cited source (reference number 32): http://0wikipedia.org/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly93ZWIuYXJjaGl2ZS5vcmcvd2ViLzIwMDcwNzE0MTAzOTE5L2h0dHA6Ly9hcnNpdi56YW1hbi5jb20udHIvMjAwMy8wNi8xNC9oYWJlcmxlci9oMi5odG0. The translated part in the source does not match the one translated here. It is a mistranslation. I will elaborate. First, let me quote the wiki paragraph:

" After the government was overthrown, Henze cabled Washington, saying, "our boys [in Ankara] did it."[32]"

BUt if you check the source, it reads in Turkish: "Tam olarak ne söylediğini hatırlamıyorum. Ama hatırladığım kadarı ile Ulusal Güvenlik Konseyi’nde o sırada görev başında olan kişi beni aradığında şuna benzer bir şey söyledi: “Ankara’daki çocuklar bu işi yaptı...”"

It means "I do not recall exactly. As far as I remember, as then head of National security agency called me told something like this: "Guys in ANkara did it.""

What is the difference? THe wiki sections says "Paul Henze called Washington and reported our guys in ankara did it" while the source says "Paul henze is reported from Washington as "guys in ankara did it."


Moreover, according to the source, Paul Henze thought that the head of the USA did not have foreknowledge of the upcoming coup. Paul Henze himself was informed in the same evening in which coup was executed. AS he was informed he immediately called Washington and informed president Carter, he found this news positive and they started to wait it. A day after washington reckoned it a good news.

Contrary to wiki article, the interview of Paul Henze suggests that the USA did not arrange or support the coup, they were not involved in it. They had preknowledge of the coup hours before, they thought it will be a good news and they waited it. They were fan of the coup and that is why they said "guys in ankara did it" contrary to "Our guys in ankara did it."


Please either delete the section or amend it as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, parts of the section relies on biased sources, subjective ideas. I propose to delete the section and then add new one: Mythinformation about the USA involvement. Then we shall add the correct translation of Paul Henze's interview and we shall state that contrary to common belief, Paul Henze did not say "our boys in ankara did it", he rather was reported from Washington something like "guys in ankara did it", Paul Henze knew about the coup on that evening and he informed washington of the upcoming coup, President was unaware of the coup. ANd till that evening, even CIA chief of Ankara station was unaware which from that we can conclude the usa was not involved in the coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the creators of the content? If they do not show up with reliable sources, I declare the section shall be deleted and I am gonna delete it. What do you say? Any opposition? Or do we need an official translation from sworn translator to delete it? The translation written here does not match the one that is in the source. It is a misinformation to the public, we should stop it, we ought to stop it and we have to stop it. Sir artur (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that misinformations. If anyone wants to re-add it, he/she has to demonstrate it before re-adding it. Their source does not say what they say it says. Moderators, do not block me if this page becomes a place of controversy. Those who added that parts added it based on a mistranslation, if they want to add it they have to demonstrate it. --Sir artur (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish wikipedia refuses to delete the relevant section even after I provided them the transcript of the interview and the footage of the interview. Their patrol (or moderator?) refuses to accept the change. Where should I appeal? They write baseless informations on their wikipedia. They are spreading a disinformation. Here is the footage of the interview of Paul Henze: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDe202SS4Kk&t=1098s
Between 14:34 - 1459 (Quoted by Paul Henze) : “He didnt leave, it was no reason to leave. That was basically a very positive development. The next day, Washington was relieved. I remember receiving a call from the National Security Council, saying something like, ‘The boys in Ankara did it’.”
( 12 September Documentary by Mehmed Ali Birand / Part 7 )
So, where can I file my complain about the patrol of Turkish wikipedia? --Sir artur (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section was re-added even after I deleted it, @Pragdon: keeps on re-adding it without demonstrating anything and ignoring all the rebuttals forwarded to him. He/she is preventing me from doing the same thing in Turkish wikipedia. Where should I appeal to solve this problem? Prevent him from spreading a misinformation.~~----
The section is updated as "Allegations of the US involvment" as the sources we have been able to show that it is an allegation rather than an evidence. The content is also updated according to the sources. If you want to change it or revert it, explain. @Pragdon:, you are welcome to express your views. If you want to delete the part I added or you want to change something, explain so that we can discuss.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No original research" issue on American involvement section

[edit]

Pragdon is keeping adding baseless assertion into the article. The section on American involvment is no original research. The sources cited do not support the case. It has been demonstrated on this talk page, Pragdon is keeping to add this baseless assertions into the article both in this wiki and in Turkish version. Someone, do something. It is an abuse of power, s/he/they shall either raise up a source for the content or s/he/they shall quit vandalising the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reporting this issue and this moderator/patrol for weeks, both in Turkish and English wiki. No one does something, I am not talking about deciding who is right. At least supervise this condition, how do you expect Wikipedia to be considered reliable if such personal tastes go unnoticed and unopposed? I may be wrong, maybe I am right. That is not the problem, the problem is such a big report and assertion are unnoticed for weeks if not months. --Sir artur (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal: Irrelevant content on the "Allegations of the US involvement section"

[edit]

Loot at the Current version of the "Allegations of the US involvement" section. The first two paragraphs are irrelevant. It does not contain anything about allegation or possible involvement. It talks about the US - Turkey relations after the coup, does not talk about any involvement during the coup. Thus, I propose we shall delete the first two paragraphs. Any objections or support? Ruhubelent (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1980_Turkish_coup_d%27état&oldid=1196194866"