From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016[edit]


Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016; alleged)[3][4][5][6][7][8]


Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (July 15, 2016)[3][4][5][6][7][8] Thebsn (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Alleged was added as a consensus was unable to be formed among editors and the article was frequently vandalised without it, if you can find a better more concrete source that would allow us to confirm Erdoğan's involvement in the coup I would be happy to remove alleged Lalichii (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As it is stated before,there is no evidence of Erdoğan's involvement in the coup. However there is ample evidence that it was an organized coup for a particular purpose,aimed to overthrow the parliament and the President. There are good amount of sources showing the evidences of an organized coup taking orders from a religious leader, Gülen.[1] For sources in Turkish see this.[2]. There is an article in English too here.[3] Please either take the protection down or take the Erdoğan name out of the list for this is a very bold claim to make and it hurts all the Turkish people who believes in the democracy of their country and went to freely vote in the recent referendum with high rates of participation over 80%. As you know the referendum resulted to increase the power of its president with duly will of its own people. Even though it seems to meet some of the criteria of a self coup from your assessment, it does not meet all the criteria of your definition, since the increase of the President's power happened with its people's own choice. The criteria that you think is matching with the definition may also occur under different circumstances such as any kind of emergency situation that a country deems as a threat to the general security such as a terrorist attack. In fact that is what happened in Turkey. (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I recognise your objection however I think it is somewhat misinformed. The referendum has nothing to do with the claimed self coup, in fact it was added to this list before the referendum was even announced as a possibility. I am aware of the official perpetrator and am of the mind that this is probably the truth, we are not however the objective deciders of reality and so if a claim of self coup has been lodged (which it has) we cannot dismiss it purely because we think it is improbable. I'm open to discussion about this but it seems that many people (the majority being Turks) continue to remove the event from the list without any input to the discussion and so I am hesitant to allow removal without strong justification. Lalichii (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the main source that referenced in the article is BBC's report which considers a possibility of a self coup as one of three "theories" of what actually happened on 15 July. Among three theories, BBC gives no source for a false flag theory. Secondly, these reports have come right couple days after the coup which does not provide much ability to have a well sourced report for anybody anyways.Thirdly, upon long considerations and systematic investigation by the independent Turkish judiciary, it concluded that the coup was indeed purposefully organized and perpetrated by a military junta taking orders from Gülen. Fourthly, I have mentioned the referendum as it can also be considered as a supportive argument that if Turkish people who are the first hand witness of what has been happening in their country, would have thought that that was a false flag coup, they would not participate in this referendum as much or would not vote YES for a system that would increase President's power. In this case, following the definition given on self coup,the Turkish President Erdoğan has not dissolve or render the national legislature powerless and has not unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. since the state of emergency (which increases President's executive power) has been declared not by himself but by the parliament through a majority vote of 346 against 115 just like the way what French parliament did for similar reasons. He has not annul the nation's constitution, suspend civil courts nor assume dictatorial powers.Therefore, keeping his name on this list by ignoring the decisions of Turkish court, opinions of the Turkish people,reactions of the parliament and by relying on a weak source written by a news media channel that does not provide any evidence written right couple days after the event without having any clue of what actually happened and written with a bias towards Erdoğan would not be just. Some Western media write these articles as they recognize him as an Islamist who has hostile feelings towards the West and too much of a powerful leader that makes difficult for them to mess up Turkey and the Middle East. It is debatable what their motives really are. And that is not the main point of the discussion here.

Assuming that I raised valid arguments here that would lead to the conclusion that it would be fair to take his name out of the list. So I just took his name out. I am also open to further discussion. Thanks rinduzahid(talk) 14:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change. Also, as the article is still semi protected you should not have removed the semi protection notice. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping a country's leader on this list with a side note "alleged" that is so weakly sourced which suggests he is a despot, a tyrant and a liar is unfair and offensive. As a Turkish citizen, I am upset and offended with this biased editing behavior. In this case I want to open the neutrality of this article to discussion. Thanks rinduzahid(talk) 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that sources offend you. That, however, is really not an issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Dbrodbeck, the source is not offensive. The news media had the excuse to cite any possible theories at the time. Those reports came right after the coup. Now, it has been eight months passing over the coup. The evidences have been laid out by the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice which has not been denied or objected by anybody within and outside of Turkey .In addition, that is a news media channel. They have the right to be biased and they can say whatever they want to say. However, Wikipedia is not a media outlet of any channel. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia contributed by serious people voluntarily and with good intentions to help grow a fair, balanced and unbiased source of knowledge. I don't think your insistence in keeping his name on this list serves to that purpose. rinduzahid(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a report by a neutral source [4] (House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, UK) stating that "The FCO seems willing to accept the Turkish government’s account of the coup attempt and the Gülenists broadly at face value." I think this entry should be removed. Guneserdogan (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the references listed there has nothing to do with any claim on self-coup. They are rather repercussions of strict ruling after the coup attempt. Elasolova 05/01/2017 @ 6:24pm (UTC)

Please read the quotation I have provided again. "The FCO seems willing to accept the Turkish government’s account of the coup attempt and the Gülenists broadly at face value." Meaning that it is not a self-coup, it is by an outsider group called Gülenists. The five references listed in support of the allegation are newspaper articles. This is a formal report, written by elected members of the parliament, with access to governmental intelligence. Hence, this is direct evidence in contrast to the peripheral evidence consisting of newspaper articles. Of course, they cannot reveal all of their sources. Guneserdogan (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war over this, and if everyone else seems to think removing sourced content is ok, then, well, I'm not going to die on this hill. MPs writing a report is not the same, to me anyway, as professional news organizations. The original coup itself probably is not the work of the current government, the crackdown afterwards, the curtailment of civil liberties, the jailing of thousands, I think that is what is being referred to as a 'self coup' by some of us here. Anyway, if someone could fix the vandalism about Hitler in 1933 that would be helpful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Center for Freedom issued a very comprehensive report in July 2017 claiming that the coup was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish president Erdogan. The report disclosed a secret operation plan that was put in the works long before the coup attempt took place. The goal was to set up opposition for a mass persecution, justify crackdown and push Turkish army into military incursion into Syria. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Fethullah Gülen".
  2. ^ "Medium Corporation".
  3. ^ "Anadolu Agency".
  4. ^ "House of Commons Report" (PDF).
  5. ^

Table format[edit]

In order to increase readability I've converted the page to a table format (preview), it needs some work (outcomes and contemporary names of nations) but I think its much superior to the current page. Any objections/suggestions? Lalichii (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Validity of the article[edit]

I have strong doubts about the validity of this article. It's a long list of very different facts, many of which do not appear to conform to the definition given at the beginning of the article. And it is almost totally unsourced. Seudo (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I was in the process of adapting the article to a table form with links to each self coup but put it on the back burner, I think it would cut down on the problems with validity by requiring linked articles on each coup. I also believe the definition needs to be refined (perhaps using the wiktionary "A coup d'état in which a lawfully-elected head of state seizes power from the other branches of government."). Do you think it would be worth continuing the project? Lalichii (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm more than two years late to this discussion, but I'd support gutting most of the examples. This isn't "List of self-coups" - prose would be much preferred to a wall of unsourced and unexplained bullet-points. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 05:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)