Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish military false flag operations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish military false flag operations

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Turkish military false flag operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR and bad sources Shadow4dark (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a few cases of Turkey committing false flag operations and blaming Kurdish rebels. The conflict between the Kurds is still going on till this day with many more cases. Also in 2014 there are leaked tapes of Turkish officials planning or giving the go ahead of a false flag operation for pretext to go to war in Syria. The page still needs improving and updating, if you think the sources are bad, why not improve them. Here's some further additional stories that I was planning to add to this list. Maybe you want to delete those too?

TataofTata (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, if you Google Turkish military false flag operations at top link you cant find sources.Shadow4dark (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I just linked you more? You did, but at the same time did not..

So you found nothing? Maybe looking on the first page of google results leads to nothing, yes. But then what about the content already on Wikipedia, are they bad?TataofTata (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceShadow4dark (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that... You're being very vague. Sources are many (3rd paragraph) https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/13/dispatches-european-court-presses-turkey-justice TataofTata (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is very vague. There's not even such a definition as Turkish military false flag operation or false flag operation in cited sources. Wikipedia is not a place to invent new terms. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a definition of "false flag" (there is even a Wikipedia page of its own), false flag operations and cover-ups, and blaming someone else is not something that is being made up here one bit. The sources all clearly describing the Turkish military committing false flags and cover-ups, either blaming the PKK or others.TataofTata (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TataofTata I am aware false flag article exists, but the thing I was trying to point out was that the word "false flag" hasn't mentioned in any of the sources you have mentioned. And plus, if the definition (in this case, "Turkish military false flag operations") is an interpretation of those sources even though there's not any source that mentions the use of "false flag", that would be original research, which is disallowed in Wikipedia. But if a reliable scholar article that mentions those events are a "false flag operation", then the definition would not be original research as that stated by someone with reliable sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actual definition of a false flag as per these dictionaries (that I quickly googled):
I am sure there are many dictionaries that will say the same thing so I'm not going to keep sourcing.
If you actually look at the false flag article itself, randomly for example look under As pretexts for war, the Russo-Swedish War, it explains the false-flag action and there is no explicit mention of "false flag" in the sources neither.. Having a look at the other content and sources, it's basically all the same. It's the very acts that make it a false flag.
"The term today extends to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression."page 226.
In this case for example the Kuşkonar massacre the very acts are the definition of a false flag. We have turkey bombing a village, then ruling in a court case that the village was bombed by the PKK. As for a source we have the U.N. (which is reliable) describes an incident in which the Turkish military bombs a village then blames the PKK and the story is obviously in the turkish media spreading the blame on the PKK, by definition it's a false flag operation - committed by turkey / turkish military. The U.N. is purely reporting the incident and that is enough. Each source talks about turkey (turkish) committing an act that is exactly the definition of a false flag (committing an act then blaming another party), I'm amazed you think that this constitutes as original research.. Unbelievable that I am having to explain actual definitions. You also said the article is vague, when the page is pretty much a list of incidents in which turkey commits acts of false flags.. All of these seems like clutching on anything that sticks.TataofTata (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TataofTata I'm not really trying to "nitpicking", but instead I'm giving the reason why the article is considered as "original research" and therefore should not exist in Wikipedia. The claim should be backed by the reliable sources relevant with the article; instead of original synthesis backed by dictionaries which is not relevant with the topic, and also only evaluated by the editors; instead of reliable, verifiable sources. According to Wikipedia, original research means:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Also, could you please quote where "false flag" word appeared without citation that mentioned "false flag" in the articles at Russo-Swedish War? I've searched inside of all of the articles linked on the list and none of them appeared to included the phrase "false flag". Ahmetlii (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's prue Disinformation and misinformation.. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+ A similar debate was happend with the Turkish air force shooting Kurdish civilians. They cited unexploded bombs in the mountains as evidence for this, but when the scene was investigated, it was understood that what was supposed to be a bomb was jet FUEL TANKS... This is what i mean about disinformation and misinformation. I just corrected an edit like this. Fake claim about 42 civilians were killed by State forces during anti-government protests Talking about 6-8 October Kurdish riots for Kobani in Turkey. Civilians who died as a result of the street conflict between YDG-H vs Hudapar (Kurdish islamists) & Gray wolf members on the streets have nothing to do with the state,police or the government. Civilians died as a result of the conflict between 3 groups. in 2014, MHP (Gray wolf) party were in opposition not in goverment either in state so as Hudapar. Here is too the example of the state killing civilians and blaming third parties is given. We have a proverb for this in Turkey; Throw shit, if it doesn't stick, it leaves a mark. IN MY OPINION we should avoid these purely asymmetrical war tactics and propaganda on wikipedia WP:PROPAGANDA Cengizsogutlu (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something unrelated and not mentioned in this article, very biased. I think it's time someone with authority steps in now. Pro-Turkey accounts claiming all sorts of things here. Here's another source. I have spent more time here than on the actual article. I think this kind of abuse should not be allowed.TataofTata (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfectly fits into our definition of original research. TataofTata, you are saying that you are being "abused by pro-Turkey accounts" and calling other people who have voiced their opinion based on policies "biased", yet in the article you call the Istanbul pogrom "Constantinople riot". This event took place in 1955, decades after the Constantinople name was dropped and is therefore an WP:NPOV violation, and is also a MOS:EGG. I think this also shows a bit of where you stand towards Turkey. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if you want to argue that Cengizsogutlu's "voiced opinion" is unbiased and his vote is based on "policies" feel free, but that is what I believe is biased and abusing the voting as he mentioned something completely unrelated to this article arguing for its deletion, so you literally made up that quote and putting words into my mouth.
I should have been more clear. All I see is turkish accounts essentially ganging up trying to get this deleted as I simply said, "claiming all sorts of things", which we can see happening, even yourself and GGT user below, every policy "violation" hoping that will stick. If you felt that "Constantinople riot" is inaccurate or not neutral, you were more than welcome to contribute and correct, only if I reverted your change would it be fair to accuse me of a violation if I did violate it. Ignoring your accusation about where I stand with Turkey, while doing research on that section I recall it being called as that in some of the sources and link to the Wikipedia article itself was added later. So clearly we can see they were still using Constantinople in the 1900's... Also this. The city was renamed after the Ottomans conquered it, it wasn't simply dropped. When the allies took it over they were calling it Constantinople so you're making it out to be some kind of rare occurrence that I just reinvented.
I'll address the elephant in the room, you guys obviously don't like what you see and want to remove it. Literally arguing the meanings and definition of "false-flag", while also clearly we can see this discussion has more edits and word count than the article itself. I found this Wikipedia article trying to research more on turkey's false flags and after finding more content I thought I would share and now I see trying to remove the content is obviously your goalsTataofTata (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant violation of WP:OR and fits in with the user's disruptive pattern of synthesising content to push their pro-PKK POV on other articles. There are simply no sources that treat these as instances of a single, unified phenomenon, so the whole scope of the article is original research, and these are not even undisputed instances of false flag operations. --GGT (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing people of being pro-PKK, sounds like something done in Turkey for when people speak the truth. I don't know where you thought this was a "single, unified phenomenon" argument.. You mention the Pınarcık massacre page, but you reverted my edits which was to try and make the page more neutral, you reverted to the edits of someone who was banned and clearly manipulated the page with a very pro-turkish narrative. In 2016 you manipulated the page to burry a confession by a ex-special forces officer who states the perpetrators were turkish JİTEM (a clandestine wing with the turkish military committing illegal activities) You have a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and maybe more. I think this needs to stop Wikipedia is not to push Turkey's nationalistic views.TataofTata (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the page's creator. Thanks everybody for the input. About the request for deletion based on WP:OR I have to argue that it doesn't apply due to the very gravity of the context. As some of you already argued, the examples named in the article are a summary of military acts that were blamed for years on insurgents and were disclosed later as something which is called by definition "False Flag". WP:OR states that the published material is taken for own interpretation ("that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"). The sources are by nature revolving around the horrible events that occurred, and not "generalizing" the deaths of individuals as "one of many other attacks". Death is seen by every family and their lawyers as a tragedy in itself. But what we have here in this article is a listing of what is explaining most correctly a "False Flag operation". We do not invent or coin anything. We need to classify or summarize. It's just that the sheer number of such cases goes into the hundreds, if not thousands, and are covered by international courts and human rights organization. I haven't had the possibility to work on the page properly yet, but will now through your kind critics on the lacking of the article. I was searching just now for over an hour a certain lawyer's office documents of hundreds of pages that I had saved. I will find it share here as an insight for the Turkish users to understand the gravity of the issue. About the claim that the page is Orphaned WP:OR and should therefore be deleted, I join here the comment of TataofTata that any shortage in the page should be corrected and improved, rather than asking the scrapping of a whole concept. The allegedly poor links do work as I see and are all part of investigative journalism. They count very well as valid for Wikipedia articles. The definition of orphaned says that "an article has no links from other pages in the main article namespace". This can be changed easily by a single addition. I haven't done that yet because I expected some others to enhance the page with their research file, but they couldn't due to some personal situations (studies etc). I will be working now once a week to add data to the page and will thereafter add links in a proper context to the page that I created. Thank you for marking it therefore. Shadow4dark Ahmetlii But I ask to retract the deletion request herewith.

And about the addition of Constantinople and older ones, they can be improved and need to be taken as different cases. They do not influence the validity of the page itself. But I myself argue that it doesn't fit into the frame of the page because the introduction specifically talks about the relation between the Kurdish insurgents of the Worker's Party. Older events that describe a military of different kind and era belong to another page. The Turkish military has undergone some phases but cannot be prosecuted anymore for the older events. Listing all events would have therefore no practical meaning. If there are multiple cases before 1978 that had an impact of how Turkey evolved as a state, then you would be able to open a new page named something like "Military Coups (Turkey)" or so, describing the coups and crimes that happened and therefore "changed the course of events". The goal of the page "Turkish military false flag operations" has another purpose and frame. After the last of 1980 there had been countless of individual murders, done by state-affiliated actors or soldiers but blamed on any leftist organizations back then. With the beginning of the armed conflict in 1984 the military of Turkey used disproportionate force in the Kurdish regions to crush the uprising and assimilate all Kurdish elements for the sake of a "single entity". There are countless cases that can still be prosecuted and benefit a course of peace in our era. So by listing the cases after 1980 (military coup) one offers a collected information page of military actions (done by the same era defense council) that were PROVEN by court and investigation to have been blamed falsely on insurgents, further escalating the relation between communities. So I want to ask you please to retract any of your additions of events before 1978 (founding of the Kurdistan Worker's Party as a student's organization). Further examples will be added henceforth.

In regard to the claim of WP:SYNTH by GGT I have to add that the definition refers to a context being manipulated from A+B to C, but doesn't refer to the numerical listing of events in the same frame. As I said, I want that the events before 1980/1978 are deleted so that there is no disruption in context and any influence on how the military should be perceived. The goal is not to say "the Turkish military has done false flag operations since 1930" or so, but to list the very military operations of the 1980 coup and post-coup era that exacerbated the human rights situation in the country. The claim of WP:NPOV, meaning "neutral point of view" falls into the same frame and is not the case here. The article "Turkish military false flag attacks" is a listing page for multiple events of this era which are variously reported by that frame. Multiple researches go also about para-military groups formerly controlled by the army. This page will be a list for these occurences. WP:PROPAGANDA and WP:misinformation are therefore as well invalid claims. RedurMaye (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you guys, like, actually work on this instead of, excuse my language, bitching and whining about how everyone that isn't you is biased and is pro-Turkey or anti-Turkey or whatever? Processes such as AfD don't get done when you have people either posting unformatted paragraphs about how Turkey (and thus every editor that is against them) is evil or rushing to delete the page because they don't like how mean this is to Meleagris. And if this article's staying, it needs some work, because I'm seeing grammatical errors five seconds into a quick skim and, judging by the amount of heat this topic alone has brought, I don't feel keen on editing it myself. AdoTang (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to give this one more round. I'm curious what other EXPERIENCED editors have to say about this.

Please keep it civil.

This is about the content in the article, the sourcing, etc "which side" you're on politically.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solely based on original research, with human rights organizations being the sole source in most of it. I understand why the creator wants to draw attention to these and the "very gravity of the context", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it only exists to repeat what established experts are saying. For this list of "operations" to even be considered as an article, the references need to be from independent experts who specifically label each one as a "false flag operation". Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_military_false_flag_operations&oldid=1026926307"