Talk:Ergenekon (organization)

(Re)move coup diaries?

The prosecutor did not included coup diaries to the indicement. In 2700 pages, there is not even single quote / reference from the diaries. So it's cast serious doubt about the authenticity. I am going to add this details, if someone else already did not. I beleive as indicement clearly indicates, Coup Diaries has nothing to do with Ergenekon and has to be removed from this article.

Also one of the prominent independent journalist, Fatih Altayli, revealed some interesting details about how diaries obtained and manifactured [1], also the connections between -alleged owner of the dairy- General Ozden's sons with Calik family, a tycoon closely aligned with Erdogan government.[2][3]

After the indicement released, all the diaries case is downplayed by the Erdogan Media -Zaman, Taraf, Star, Bugun, Yenisafak-. We used to see a number of diaries' articles everday, now it's appeared the case is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs) 09:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to mainstream sources. I would prefer not to source opinion columns. If you insist, please qualify it with something like "According to journalist Fatih Altayli..." I added a sentence or two. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that the court documents are the primary sources of wikipadia. Let's stick with the primary sources. In this case the primary source is the indicement and it does not provide any reference to coup diaries. So it's very clear that these two incidents -ergenekon and the allegent court attempts- are not related eachother and should be dealt under seperate articles. I am removing coup the section until it gets into the indicement in the future.

By the way, please do not be fooled by the Erdogan's media. Erdogan's media claimed that there is a police criminal lab report proving the diaries are authentic. However noone saw this report and it's neither in indicement nor in the indicement's attachments. So the coup diaries are totally based upon unverifable claims made by erdogan-fethullah media. (AA 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

The article already makes clear the fact that the diaries are suspect. I went to the trouble of moving it to the bottom of the article, liberally prefixing it with "alleged" and removing the quotes for further de-emphasis. What you should not do, however, is to remove all traces of it. That would imply that the diaries were never a subject of debate. Our job is to provide references, and lots of them. For example, news reports confirming the criminal lab statement in your last paragraph would be great. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the diaries become a seperate article and the qoutes moved there. Then both articles could reference eachother. I think the diaries has significant importance since it's a red-hot topic in the recent history of Turkey. I beleive such contraversial topics should not be REMOVED from wikipedia like Gulen tapes disappeared. But we should be aware of the significant effords (by erdogan/gulen media) to associate everything in the recent history of Turkey with Ergenekon (i.e Dink/Santoro case, Mumcu murder, PKK, Hizbullah, Sivas Masaccer et. al.), otherwise we may end up copying all of these article into Ergenekon page. I beleive subchapters like -Alleged Ergenekon-PKK Link- is appropriate but creating a whole subchapter called PKK or Coup Diaries is totaly nonsense. (AA 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

I believe we have provided the reader with plenty of warnings in the article. At the end of the day, one must still exercise judgement. Content forking is discouraged, so we have to exercise discretion in splitting. I see that the TR WP has created tr:Sarıkız ve Ayışığı Darbe Teşebbüsleri. Is this the direction you want to go? If so, perhaps we should still leave the "Coup diary" section since it has been repeatedly mentioned in press, explain why it is irrelevant, then point readers to the new article. I don't have time to write the new article myself but I can copy-edit once it gets started, if we go ahead. (I suggest naming it "2004 coup plans (Turkey)".) Let's wait for some other people to offer an opinion first. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One possibility is to move much of the content – such as the long quote - to the Nokta article.  --Lambiam 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the coup diaries have one again been incorporated into the trial, the above can be dismissed. A separate indictment is on its way. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

However the supplementary indictment isn't out and there is no official source that even talks about the alleged coup diaries. The supplementary indictment in question hasn't been around for months. Should the alleged coup diaries make it into the legal case in the form of actual evidence or as a part of the supplementary indictment, then they can be added. Without that their inclusion here is semi-original research. It is presence in the article should be accompanied by whose clam it is in the form of "Source A clams foo". -- Cat ^chi? 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideology / Political Agenda

Isn't their "ideology" based on ultra-nationalist & Kemalist doctrines? Their ways of achieving their goals might not be Kemalist; but is not their ultimate goal popularizing Kemalism and bringing pro-Turkic and Kemalist regime/life-style back? If so, can we re-state this in the introduction?... (so cool) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.201.230 (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalism is mentioned in the lede. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "the group, which used to call itself the "deep state", has a long history" needs rewriting. Ergenekon might be a part of the deep state, but the deep state is more than and bigger than just Ergenekon, so the sentence is wrong in that it suggests that the two are actually one and the same thing. Nor has any organisation or group actually called itself the "deep state". Meowy 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's ideology seems to be neo-fascist. //// Also, as a native speaker of Russian I must tell that Alexandre Dugin could not have possibly been "the brains behind the organization". Dugin is just too dumb and not capable of being a mastermind. In Russia he is considered to be a political baffoon.Пипумбрик (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point it's well established to be ulusalci, which is commonly translated as "neonationalist". I greatly appreciate any insight Russian-speakers have to provide about alleged links. If you don't have the time to directly contribute, just share the URL of interesting articles you have read. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. That translation does not seem right. Ulusalcı translates as "nationalist" (typically). While it can also mean "ultra-nationalist", that kind of usage would be a political one not shared by everybody.

I think the article should cover both possible meanings as a ref and use the Turkish word inside the article and linking to the ref. In many other topics where translation promotes mixed meanings (like some Japanese topics) this is regularly done.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, nationalist is "milliyetci". Ulusalcilik is a new ideology; that's why it has a neo- prefix. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the reliable source (dictionary) disagrees with you. There is a conflict in the naming. We do this all the time on many articles on this site. I do not see any reason for this to be any different. -- Cat ^chi? 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't; look up milliyetci. And that's no reliable source, either. It's just some Web dictionary. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The word that is used in the article is "ulusalcı", why the heck should I look up "milliyetci"?

The web dictionary falls under WP:RS. Never the less, my handy Redhouse dictionary suggests "ulusal = national" hence making "ulusalcı" = "nationalist" by the basic Turkish agglutination rules of the -ci affix. But like I said translating "ulusalcı" as "neonationalist" is a political way not shared by everybody. Its not wrong but such translation without the necessary measures I mentioned would fall under WP:OR.

Articles on Wikipedia should be written with the clearest language possible. Special care should be given to translation of words and each complication (such as this) should be properly treated. This is done on other articles on the site: Bōryokudan, Kamikaze, Origami, Hikikomori... I can list pages and pages of examples.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the dumb dictionary maps both ulusalci and milliyetci to nationalist; a quick test of how reliable it is. No, it does not fall under WP:RS, by any stretch. I can create a Web site called reliabledictionary.org and stuff it with definitions of my choosing. There is no specific ideology called ultranationalism; it's an umbrella term used to denote extreme nationalism. Ulusalcilik is specific. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't unheard of for a word to have multiple translations. For example the Japanese word "shikkaku" can be translated as "disqualification", "elimination", or "incapacity" (legal). When any of these three words are translated back to Japanese the correct word is "shikkaku". Or consider wiktionary:car#Noun (10 different meanings). This is why translations are complex. That is the very reason I am asking for the measures in question.

Unfortunately you will need to provide a reliable source to counter mine (Seslisozluk & Redhouse). Your personal opinions and beliefs cannot dictate the content of the article. In addition even if you do find a source the complex nature itself warrants the measures I mentioned.

We can go the WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR way if you like but I'd rather focus on improving the article. What I am asking is common practice on this site - something I'd expect everyone to be familiar with.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did: neonationalism is the translation that the press uses. I simply reflected this. It's not as if I made up the translation myself. seslisozluk is nowhere near a reliable source so I'm going to discount it. The press correctly does not verbatim translate ulusalcilik as nationalism because that word has been co-opted by milliyetcilik. Ulusalcik is new, and thus is referred to using neo-. Pretty reasonable, no? (Quick test: find the oldest occurrence of the word "ulusalcilik".) Read this article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are claiming ulusalcik cannot be translated as "nationalism". So far you haven't proven that. I do not believe you can prove that. Mistranslations can happen. The media does not give the special care we give to translations on this site. -- Cat ^chi? 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also according to the Turkish Language Association (official regulatory body), [4] ulusalcı clearly means milliyetçi and only Milliyetçi (you need to type in ulusalcı). -- Cat ^chi? 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I typed in "ulusalcilik" and it gave me "milliyetcilik". Really! Everyone knows that the two are distinct. If you know Turkish, you can read the respective articles in the Turkish WP. I am claiming that it is foolish to translate ulusalcilik as nationalism when a perfectly good translation called neonationalism exists. Why lose a shade of meaning? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry? Why are you insisting on using neonationalism in the article and not nationalism<ref>explanation</ref>. Why do you oppose? "It's foolish" is not a valid reason. -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained it over and over. I even gave a reference that does nothing but thrash this subject: Are ‘Milliyetçilik’ and ‘Ulusalcılık’ the same as nationalism? "Nationalism" is a watered down term that does not tell you anything about the tenets of the alleged organization. There are countless people that call themselves "nationalist". Hoewver, there is one and only one manifestation of neonationalism in the world, and it applies to certain people associated with Ergenekon. What more is there to say? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes some political circles such as the one Zaman represents feels that "Milliyetçilik" and "Ulusalcılık" are different in meaning and translate Ulusalcılık as Neonationalism. Views of such political circles unfortunately are not necessarily shared by the vast majority. Attempting to base an article on a certain political point of view would be a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy. I have already quoted the official sources for the alternative official translation which is different. There is a difference in opinion over the translation and the article should reflect that.

Also, is neonationalism even a crime in the Turkish legal system? I may be wrong as I do not know much about the Turkish legal system but I seriously doubt it is forbidden like that. Why are you trying so hard to toss in neonationalism every here and there?

-- Cat ^chi? 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Princeton University's WordNet ([5]) neo means:

• (adj) neo ((used as a combining form) recent or new) "'neo' is a combining form in words like 'neocolonialism'".

According to the same source nationalism [6] has four meanings. So by adding a neo- prefix you are either trying to say

1. new/recent love of a country and willingness to sacrifice for it
2. new/recent doctrine that the national culture and interests are superior to others
3. new/recent aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign rule
4. new/recent doctrine that nations should act independently rather than collectively to attain goals

Which ever meaning you are intending to say it gets confusing with the neo prefix and in some cases if not all you form an oxymoron. By the way neonationalism is not even an official translation of ulusalcilik... If anything neonationalism is a loaded word that should be avoided by plague even though the word itself makes little sense...

-- Cat ^chi? 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First of Princeton University's WordNet doesn't recognize neonationalism as a word [7] so the word probably isn't that common in everyday usage. Neonationalism seems to be an unpopular political term, it does not even have an article. Browsing through a Google search of "neonationalism", I see about 1,300,000 hits with an unfiltered search. Which may seem like a lot. I merely added one minus word to filter my search string (neonationalism -xenophobia) and the number of hits drop all the way down to 7,710. Neonationalism is indeed a confusing loaded word which implies xenophobia making its use further problematic. -- Cat ^chi? 13:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you won't find it in your dictionaries, because the ideology is new. I am interested to know what you think ulusalcilik is, and how it relates to milliyetcilik. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry? If it isn't in the dictionaries how can you use it so easily and casually on the article? How do you expect the reader to follow the article if they do not even have a dictionary to look up the word. As for your other point, I'd have to decline your offer. Article talk pages are for discussing article content only, not to exchange opinions. -- Cat ^chi? 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely why we spend time going into the ideology in this article; because you can't just look it up in your dictionary. My question was not an idle one; we can't have a fruitful debate over translations if we are not in agreement over what the original terms mean. And I don't think you have a clear idea. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My question stands. Please answer it. Why do you want to casually use a word that is so complex that it is difficult to translate in this article? My native language is English and I do not understand what the word is intending to say. I cannot figure it out as not even dictionaries use it.

The ideology section itself is highly problematic. It is good you brought it up. First of there are repeated statements. The section states the following (I am numbering them for easier discussion.):

1. "Ergenekon network mainly aims to break Turkey's ties with the NATO and the West in general."
2. "Most of the Ergenekon members are anti-Semitic and ultra-Turkist."
3. "They claim that the MOSSAD and Israel in general has played a dirty role in Turkish politics."
4. "Almost all of them are anti-Semitic."
5. "Some of the Ergenekon intellectuals wrote anti-Semitic books and started anti-Semitic campaigns in order to spread their anit-Israeli opinion among the people."
6. "They claim the US, the EU and Israel have made efforts to divide the country."
7. "All members are ultra-nationalist Kemalist"

Problems:

1. The section doesn't even explain what "anti-Semitic" is or what "ultra-nationalist Kemalist" is. First of which of these activities are illegal by nature? How are any of these entires even relevant to the article? A good "ideology" section would explain all of these.
2. Articles on this site typically at least give a brief introduction on the terminology and examples of such behavior by the organization. This is to better explain the reader who typically knows nothing about the topic. We see no evidence of such explanation in the entire ideology section.
3. Wikipedia:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia is not a soapbox#2: Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Entire ideology section is opinionated.
4. Might I dare to add that the entire section is based on one and only one source which has questionable reliability. For example article states "Ergenekon network mainly aims to break Turkey's ties with the NATO and the West in general". IIRC, some of the officers tried worked for NATO. In fact according to tr:Tuncer Kılınç, he is the longest serving Turkish general in NATO. That seems a bit self conflicting. The source article seems more like how "Merve Mervan" (the author) perceives the alleged organization. Which alone is fine (for the author) but cannot be the only source for our article here.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't stand behind the Ideology section; someone else wrote it. You could scrap it and remove the npov tag. I wrote about the ideology in the lede. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ergenekon (legendary place)

Someone has requested that Ergenekon (legendary place) be moved to Ergenekon, over the redirect to Ergenekon (disambiguation). Previously, the disambiguation page was at Ergenekon. See Talk:Ergenekon (legendary place)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

A lot of problems exist with this article starting with the title and lead all the way to the end. While I acknowledge the signal to noise ratio of the legal case is high, we should do our best to ignore the noise.

I noticed the "overuse" of sources like Todays Zaman, Taraf, Yeni Şafak and Vakit which had been criticized for being factually inaccurate at times. Some of the content should be based directly on the actual indictment rather than the media.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you responding to the right article? There are no Vakit sources here. The indictment is cited frequently. And what's wrong with the title? If you have better sources you should certainly cite them. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just responding generally about some of the sources with questionable reliability. Some of them (like Todays Zaman) seems unnecessarily sensational. I'd prefer to avoid such sources if possible. If the info is reliable, some other source can easily verify it, right?

The title is problematic as typically cases are named differently on this site. This article does not cover a topic about an organization at all. It is a legal case and the naming of such articles typically follows an "A v. B" scheme. A few examples:

• Funke v. France
• City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball LP
• Almendarez-Torres v. United States
• Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
• Regina v. Special Adjudicator
• Murray v. United Kingdom

Also the naming of the legal case is not really "Ergenekon" thats a nickname the media seems to have came up on its own which would make it a fine redirect but a poor title.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are behind on your research on this subject. You can start by correcting your assumption that "Ergenekon [is] a nickname the media seems to have came up on its own". There is information about the organization--a nice long section, in fact--and I would like to write more about it but I don't have time. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue about the fine details. I neither have the patience or energy. Current naming doesn't fit the naming scheme on this site. Turkey v. Ergenekon would fit the naming scheme which is the proper title. Do you have a reason to oppose that? -- Cat ^chi? 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fine point; its proof that you are not familiar with the subject. I object because this article covers both the alleged organization and its trial. It would be like renaming the "Nazi Party" article to the "Nuremberg Trials". Furthermore, it is not the familiar name associated with this subject. I have already refuted your point that this article is just about a trial. You will not find one single reference to the phrase "Turkey v. Ergenekon" anywhere in print or on the Web (I checked). --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

GAH! Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies! You know tossing in the Nazi example can be considered as trolling. I suggest you do not repeat it ever again. Nuremberg Trials was a series of individual trials that had taken place in Nuremberg. Had individual articles on the trials themselves existed they would be named "A v. B".

I gave you our naming scheme on this site, Wikipedia. So far I have not seen a rational explanation for the current title. I do not understand why you are passionately opposing a rename and insulting my knowledge on the topic.

You may want to create a breakaway article in that case. I am only interested in the trial and not the alleged organization itself.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You totally missed the point. It matters not how many trials took place at Nuremberg. The point is that we don't squeeze all the information about the Nazi Party into the Nuremberg Trials article. If this article becomes unmanageably long, we can continue to spin off sections summary style. I already did this to the list of suspects. The fact that you personally are not interested in reading about the trial and not the alleged organization is the last reason one can proffer to rename it. How can you make sense of the trial without knowing about the alleged organization? It doesn't make the least bit of sense. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. I am talking about the name scheme on the site. You are not.

Please do not misrepresent my standpoint. I am uninterested in expanding the article on the alleged organization itself. Its existence is only alleged and I do not want to waste my time and energy on an organization that may cease to exist at the end of the trial which certainly is a possibility. I am only interested in the details about the trial (actual trial itself, people suspected, arrested, released, convicted, etc...).

The article on the organization and trial should be split as otherwise it is being problematic. Article is decently long to say the least. The trial hasn't even concluded yet!

-- Cat ^chi? 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point is that you personally don't want to read about the background, but that's your personal opinion, not a binding fact. Without knowing what these people are alleged to have in common, you are left with a sequence of disconnected facts; this person alleged this, that person got detained, etc. As any journalist will tell you, the chief "W" is "why?" --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not a newspaper and is an encyclopedia. We have a manual of style on article namings. Not everything is spelled out of course but the general consensus of trial articles is the A v B format. Aside from your personal preference so far you have not cited a single reason on why the article name shouldn't comply with the general naming scheme.

Also I never said I didn't want to read about the background of the alleged organization and etc. I merely said I was uninterested in writing about it as the facts in question are subject to rapid changes depending on how the legal case progresses. You are going to run into a serious problem if you continue to try to assign me views I do not hold.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I already explained that this article not just about the trial? So it does not follow the rules that you set forth. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested a breakup into two articles. Something you rejected so far without giving a rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the background on the organization does not take up much space, and if you split them up you would still have to repeat some of the info as background in the trial's article. It would be a waste of effort. This is exactly what ended up happening in the TR WP, if you haven't noticed. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not care much on what happens in tr.wikipedia. Indeed we do not know much about this alleged organization. We aren't even sure if it really exists. If it really exists, I am sure there will be a lot of research about it in the future and we will write about it afterwards. If not the article will be entirely about a failed court case. Until then it is necessary to separate possible fiction (the organization) with the non-fictional court case. Article development will then proceed with fewer setbacks if this is done. Short articles are fine. They are not banned.

Also please properly increase the indentation when you are replying. I have been doing this for you and was hoping you'd start doing it without such a warning.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

..someone wrongly put the extremist leftist 17N organization there and another one wrongly deleted the List of assassinated people from Turkey (in which the latest assassinations are said to be connected with Ergenekon) and he said it is not related. well Ergenekon is blamed to be a terrorist organization and linked with assassinations in Turkey so the list is actually relevant.--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ergenekon itself is an alleged organization. Ergenekon is alleged of committing assassinations. It has not even been "convicted" of existing or committing anything. Regardless, Ergenekon is not accused of all assassinations in Turkey so I see no reason why the link in question is presented as a "see also". Mind that linking to individual assassination the alleged organization is accused (when relevant in a paragraph), or linking to a list of assassinations organization is convicted of carrying out (no convictions thus far) would be fine. As is the linking serves no purpose. -- Cat ^chi? 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i already underlined are said to be connected with Ergenekon,"are said", not convicted or whatever. The list is relevant enough, no matter whether you dontlikeit. if it's not relevant here, where is it? there aren't many people convicted in the list anyway, besides some Grey Wolves members plus 2-3 more.. i'm not too strong about keeping it though, if it hurts you so much..--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying is that assassinations that happened in Turkey in general is beyond the scope of this article. I am removing the see also link as you do not actively oppose it. -- Cat ^chi? 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That was no mistakes, because 17N wanted to get rid of NATO and the U.S. too, but I guess some editor missed the connection ... --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Making a parallel of an ultra-nationalist, fascist, isolationist organization with deep state connections like Ergenekon with an extreme left, Marxist, anti-capitalism, anti-nationalism organization like 17N because both dislike the USA -for fundamentally different reasons, is POV or plain dumb. There is nothing more to it.--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I to date haven't heard of a 17N & Ergenekon connection to date. I do not have a clue where that came from. Like you said such a connection would be hilarious (due to ideologic incompatibility) at best. -- Cat ^chi? 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How many other prominent militant anti-NATO organizations with alleged connections to Gladio are there? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

17N had nothing to do with Gladio. The reference of 17N that exists in the article Operation Gladio is there because a dumb Greek journalist in a low-quality paper accused "Sheepskin" (a supposed secret NATO army in Greece) for the assassination of CIA station chief Richard Welch in Athens in 1975, as well as the assassination of British military attaché Stephen Saunders in 2000. Which is untrue because 17N really killed them. And that's what the article says and that's why it mentions 17Ν. It's ok. You made a connection. It wasn't so accurate. No big deal. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)