Attributing the Claim to the "Hatay Police"
Unverifiable
Claim
Fact
In July 2016, immediately after the coup attempt of 15 July, a Twitter account named "maske3g" wrote that members of the Furkan Movement would attack Alevi neighbourhoods, and added the phrase "HATAY POLICE" in capital letters at the end of the post. This page examines not the content of the claim but its source.
The name of the institution was written inside a post; it did not come from the institution. There is no statement, no official notice, no press announcement and no public warning published to that effect. Nor does the person who made the post show how the information reached them: there is no file number, no date, no name of an official.
The difference is not a small one. Naming an institution does not mean that the institution gave the information. An official name added at the foot of a post by an account of unknown identity does not verify the claim; it only lends it a borrowed weight.
In its statement dated 21 July 2016, the Furkan Foundation called on the officials of the Hatay police to announce publicly that this information had not come from them. Its reason was concrete too: the possibility that people who believed the false information might act on it.
Why is this label "Unverified"?
The side of the claim that is true is this: we do not have a denial from the Hatay police either. The institution does not appear to have published any statement on the matter; that is, the sentence "we gave no such information" has not been put on record either. Whoever makes the claim can hold on to this gap, and for that reason we are not hiding it.
But this gap is not something that counts against the foundation. An institution staying silent does not mean that it gave the information; the burden of proof lies with the side that uses the institution's name. An unconfirmed attribution does not count as evidence and cannot be used against anyone.
The attack claim itself was dealt with under a separate heading and as "Baseless": the "They are going to attack Alevi neighbourhoods" claim.
Why a separate page?
A claim can be examined from two separate places: from what it says, and from what it rests on. The content of the attack claim put forward in July 2016 was dealt with on a separate page and found to be baseless. The only thing discussed here is that this information was attributed to a state institution.
This distinction matters for the reader, because the two questions are settled in different ways. Whether an event took place is established by evidence; where a piece of information came from is established by confirmation.
The structure of the post
The post consisted of three parts: a call to be on guard, the name of the group being targeted, and an institution's name in capital letters added at the end. The third part was the actual element carrying the first two. Had the same sentence been written without the institution's name, it would have remained the prediction of an account of unknown identity; together with the institution's name it took on the appearance of an official warning.
This is a method often seen on social media. The cheapest way of lending a claim credibility is not to present evidence, but to write it beside a name that could carry evidence.
How is an attribution to an institution verified?
The source of official information can be traced through the institution's own channels. What to look for is clear:
- a press statement or announcement published by the institution,
- a warning text addressed to the public,
- a document bearing a date and a reference number,
- the name or the post of the official passing on the information,
- a news report publishing the information after obtaining confirmation from the institution.
None of these is present in the post in question. The institution's name was written at the end of the sentence without being tied to any basis at all. This alone shows that the attribution is unconfirmed.
The call of 21 July 2016
In its public statement dated 21 July 2016, the Furkan Foundation rejected the claim and made an open call to the officials of the Hatay police: to announce publicly that no such information had been given by them.
The reason for the call was not an abstract matter of reputation. At a time when the country was tense, there was a possibility that people who believed this information would turn on the foundation. An attribution left undenied therefore concerned not only the name of an institution, but people's safety as well.
Why do we not say "Baseless"?
We could have. Looking at the present picture, writing that the institution made no such statement is a reasonable conclusion.
But we have no document that settles it. From the Hatay police there is neither a statement saying "this information came from us" nor a denial saying "it did not come from us". There is no record in the archive in either direction. To speak with certainty at such a point would contradict the care with documents that the site shows on its other pages.
That is why the label is "Unverified". This label does not support the claim; on the contrary, it shows the weight the claim cannot carry: an unconfirmed attribution does not count as evidence against the people about whom the claim is produced. An institution's silence makes no one guilty; the burden of proof remains with the side that uses that institution's name without permission.
There is no accusatory claim about the institution on this page. The subject is not the institution itself, but the use of the institution's name. If a document belonging to the Hatay police emerges that confirms or denies this information, the page will be updated.