Template talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV[edit]

  • Why is PKK a target?, Isn't Turkey also a target for the PKK?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd rename it to "others"/"other parties"/"non-government" or similar. "Target" is POV. Debate 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The 2008 bombing perpetrator is disputed--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove it then, it has no place in a template. Debate 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The PKK and its fronts are targets as far as this campaign is concerned. They do not launch operations within the WoT, they are merely targets within it. This is accepted terminology. For the "disputed" terrorist acts, as long as it is not claimed by another organization or dispute resolved by any other method, they are part of the conflict. Specially in the case of PKK. PKK has established history of creating front organizations to keep it's name clean. The article itself should include the "disputed" template, not the navigational box. Hope I have been helpful. --InRe.Po (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The nav box should link to core articles on the conflict, not every random event, and certainly not disputed random events. The media outlets, specific bombings, etc. can all be linked from the main article pages. Calling the PKK exclusively the 'target' of the conflict ignores the fact that Turkey is also the 'target' of the PKK. Debate 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I hear you, regarding the word 'target'! I'm not claiming you do not have point. BUT The general accepted position regarding a conflict is: (a) Turkey is a state. Turkey has an established military (army, navy...). Turkish army is a signature to Geneva Military Convention. (b) PKK is an organization (illegal at best). PKK has militants (not soldiers). PKK militants are not internationally recognized (they are "illegal combatants"). In this context, PKK activities are classified as attacks, such that they are terrorist attacks or at best low level clashes. It is not enough to have a military looking formation to establish a target or a campaign. Turkey, using governmental mechanism, does 'target' the organization. This is an accepted terminology. --InRe.Po (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the parties are/are not states or non-state actors is irrelevant. Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view explicitly exclude the taking of sides, regardless of whether one is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, a state, or whatever. We report facts, we do not interpret them. The fact is that the PKK and Turky are in conflict and that's all we need to say. Readers can draw their own conclusions by reading the articles. Debate 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You are clearly wrong about the nav temp. The navigational templates collects all the "related articles" or "series of articles" under one structure. "PKK Media outlets", "PKK specific bombings", "PKK related peoples", can be included in the template. Hope I have been helpful.--InRe.Po (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to come across as patronising, but as you are a user of about two weeks standing and a couple of dozen edits I'm going to assume good faith since you're still clearly still finding your way around the place. In accordance with Wikipedia:Navbox#Properties, "the goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space" ... "they should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value". Hope I have been helpful. Debate 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good information! I support your position. We will deal with size issues, when it becomes craming. There is a good show on T.V. see you later. InRe.Po (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents[edit]

In accordance with the approach taken on the main article, Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict, for consistency and to avoid POV concerns, I propose replacing the "Participants" category with "Belligerents". The category would simply list Republic of Turkey and Kurdistan Workers Party. The "list of countries" would be removed, since simply recognising the PKK as a terrorist group does not make one a participant/belligerent in the conflict. Debate 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

right. I implemented the needed changes with a slight addition.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Debate 12:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The "participants" have different level of involvement in this conflict. Not all of them "belligerents." The activities against PKK is not only limited with the "hot armed conflicts". The support of other countries: "actionable intelligence," "deportation of shady personalities," and most commonly freezing of assets. Iran went as far as hanging a group of PKK militants. The word participant is neutral than Belligerents. --InRe.Po (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't strictly have a problem with the use of the term "participants", however as a template with a low level of discussion to date I am reluctant to deviate significantly from the core article, where these issues have been discussed in detail and an apparent consensus on terminology reached. This talk page/template should not be creating new terminology, that discussion needs to occur on the main article page where there is a much higher level of traffic, and scrutiny. Debate 13:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
With respect to claims that other governments have been involved, there is no question that a significant priority of the PKK is the conflict with the Turkish government and a significant priority of the Turkish government is to eliminate the PKK. The involvement of other actors is incidental, intermittent and occurring on a dramatically smaller scale. As this is a template and not an article we only providing links to significant, pertinent articles, not every nuance of the conflict per Wikipedia:Navbox#Properties. Debate 13:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The list of other countries would fit better in a hypothetical PKK template. Those countries are not in the main page conflict infobox, and shouldn't be here too.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The fight against PKK is achieved with many levels in the Republic of Turkey. Just yesterday 551 deputies accepted sending troops to destroy training camps. If you are listing leaders of the groups, deputies are the leaders. Some of these deputies voted for the first resolution, which makes them involved more than the current chief of staff. Along the same line, why not list the Chief of Police, or head of intelligence .... who fight against terrorist activities. --InRe.Po (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that listing the leaders is controversial and in the absence of any consensus would support removal. The leaders are prominently linked within the infoboxes of many of the articles themselves and therefore there is no pressing need to duplicate them here. Debate 13:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
alright, just somebody help with making the template look OK without them --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing PKK's Media outlets[edit]

The "Seealso" category, recently added, contain only media outlets which are marginally related to the Turkey-PKK conflict. I propose removing the category per Wikipedia:Navbox#Properties. Debate 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The marginal is a point of view. The most important activity is the propagation of propaganda of every terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations do not aim to win the conflicts (terrorize by killing civilians), but use the sensation to bring the attention for their arguments. Media outlets are most important parts of this conflict. By the way it is not a category, as listed in the template. They are articles. --InRe.Po (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
remove, or add CNN Turk and others for the sake of NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This template is about the conflict as a whole, not Kurdish language media outlets. Regardless, I wonder whether you would change your objection to their removal given that advertising the closure of these media outlets is much more likely to be welcomed by supporters of the PKK than supporters of the Turkish government, since I would guess that Western readers, international human rights organizations, etc. are quite likely to see their closure as an attack on free speech and an assault on the Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, not as the legitimate closure of terrorist propaganda arms. Regarding the "category" comment, I am referring to the entire "seealso" category, which only contains media outlets, both of which were recently added without discussion. Also per your comments above, as the media outlets were added recently and consensus is clearly absent for their inclusion I am removing them until some kind of consensus on their addition can be reached. Debate 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The same applies to the clear lack of NPOV evidenced by the recent changes to the Conflicts category to "Terrorist attacks". Debate 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
CNN Turk is not associated with the conflict as an "outlet." This is not about media or news agencies. These establishments are legally banned or under scrutiny establishments which perform "distribution, propagation of violence". It is not about Turkish Law. These activities are internationally banned. The proof is in the first one. It is banned not because Republic of Turkey wanted. it is banned because these countries established the link (beyond the claim that they are Kurdish language). These activities are also included in their criminal law. --InRe.Po (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there were Turk TV stations showing propaganda songs or something during the operation Sun--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey[edit]

Although many Kurds are not supporters of the PKK the conflict has strong roots in ethnic tensions. Consequently, I propose adding a link to Kurds in Turkey as a good quality, core article that discusses some of the roots of this conflict in detail. Debate 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this position if there will be a "civil war" between Turkish People and Kurdish people in Turkey. Currently the conflict has clear sides. That is Republic of Turkey and PKK. Even Ocelan claimed "Our fight is against Republic of Turkey, not Turkish People." Republic of Turkey has many Kurdish members in it's parliament. Deputies are not limited to single party either. At this level, this proposal will neutrality issues, and not supported with the events on the ground. --InRe.Po (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
maybe not. It's too vague. It would fit better in the background section of the main article --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Per the approach taken above, additional proposals for change should be discussed here until consensus can be reached per WP:Consensus. I certainly propose to assume good faith and would respectfully ask that other interested editors also respect this core Wikipedia policy and process. Debate 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I see that 'consensus' does not apply to all editors equally, therefore it appears that we are going to have to resolve this the hard way... I'll get back to this tomorrow. Debate 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look I appreciate your goal of seeking WP:Consensus. But some of your proposals, such as the media outlets of PKK can not be put into vote. These are factual issues. If establishments are banned by court orders, there is no discussion or vote. Everybody had to accept the ruling. Rule of the law. --InRe.Po (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I am happy to run on consensus if the same rule applies to everyone. Unfortunately, it appears in this instance that it does not. As you appear to be an experienced user with a new account I imagine that you will also be familiar with some of the processes that have been used to resolve similar conflicts in the past. Now I really must get to bed. Cheers! Debate 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I will wait for Debate's return and not revert. I have an idea to reorganize the template to avoid POV at all. That later..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. There is no point in getting into an edit war here when other options are available. Debate 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear rule regarding this issue WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. As long as MED TV, Roj TV are part of PKK operations they belong to this this template. needd to present sources that prove otherwise. --InRe.Po (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New template proposal[edit]

TurkeyKurdistan Workers Party
conflict
Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg
Articles

Timeline
Effects
History of the PKK

Other

Listing of PKK
as a terrorist group

Turkish operations in N. Iraq


Something like this:


    • Removing terrorist attacks from this template is unacceptable. It is part of "arsenal" PKK is using in this conflict. What criteria is there to select one type of activity over another. If there is selection between one type of conflict to another than how could you claim you are acting NPOV. This also extends to propaganda activities. Propaganda is an arsenal which can have advance tools such as the satellite distribution systems. --InRe.Po (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
of course it's unacceptable, that's why I suggested one list of attacks article instead of including every single attack. See Template:Iraq War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I 'm responding based on the concept that the "template" needs to collect all the articles. As long as articles exists, any discussion based on which article should go into or removed from the template is a questionable discussion. I'm not arguing if there should be "a single article that will collect all attacks" or we should create individual pages for the attacks. If a page exists, if a page is conceptually link to PKK, it has a place in the template. --InRe.Po (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
did you even read my 2nd statement after all, your answer shows othervise I see now. You could do a lot of help by making those red links blue.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Using a map shoving Kurdish Inhabited areas, creates an false pretense that this conflict is between Turkish-Kurdish people. This is misleading. Not all Kurdish people living in this region support PKK. Also the conflict area is not as wide as the region marked by the map (does not include Iran, Syria, and cities like Erbil, or Armenian city of Erivan). What is the main goal behind this map, if it extends beyond the conflict region.--InRe.Po (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
did you even read my last (fifth) statement?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(a better map of the conflict) What about a World Map: I was a student in Germany when PKK blocked the Turkish embassy and destroyed the local business. It was banned in 1991 after that event. I can continue add other regions: They kidnap two German tourists at the Agri, Stopped a bus at Mersin. terrorized the Kusadasi. Used cyanide in Istanbul What about Kenya, capture of Ocelan is part of the conflict ....
    • The articles that the template will be placed already includes a right side info box. Another side box will generate a visual population. The long bottom boxes already used in these articles. The articles which this will be placed includes other navigational boxes. It is important to keep them at the bottom, as it helps people read the text. We need to remember we do not want to "cramp" many side boxes at the articles. Especially when their number is more than the text the articles use. --InRe.Po (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
if this design is not appreciated, okay. But we are discussing the NPOV-ness of the included things. The present state is unacceptable. Please allow other thoughts, not just stubbornly keep your version and revert every edit--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be stylistic officer. I'm trying to: a) solution can not exclude any article related to the conflict b) the text, or image that will be included in the design can not create a perception that this is between Turkish-Kurdish people. c) The conflict is not limited with armed struggle against military, PKK has a civilian side which should not be ignored. --InRe.Po (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new template title[edit]

  • The title of the template does not portray or represent the contents of the template. The content also lists organisations striving for Kurdish independence (an independent Kurdistan) that are unrelated to the PKK. That should be reflected in the title. Instead of "Turkey-PKK conflict" the content would be better represented with a title such as or similar to "Kurdish independence movement".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I think that this is only the title of template and is less-important. But wrong titles are harmful for readers. For example, we cannot say that their (especcially PKK's) aim is to gain independence.

Interviewer: With which aims? Autonomy? A federal system? Independence?
Abdullah Öcalan: What is needed for a contemporary man. What is true for all peoples is also true for us. A system comparable to what we see in Europe, a democratic federal system. The form is not a problem, if the will is there. The most important thing is to acknowledge the Kurdish identity.

It's very clear that the title of Template:Kurdish independence movement is neither available nor acceptable.

Takabeg (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

However, the template is not just about the PKK. It is much wider than that. There are many other organisations listed in the template. For example, PJAK is not based in Turkey. Another organisation which is based in Turkey wants nothing less than independence. Even you acknowledge that the PKK was initially motivated towards independence from Turkey.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
On Sheikh Said rebellion and Ararat rebellion, we can say that they had aimed independence. But, on Koçgiri rebellion, Dersim rebellion, October 2007 clashes in Hakkâri, we cannot say same thing. Moreover, it's disputalbe issue whether the Dersim rebellion can be regarded as a "rebellion" or not. And it's very difficult that we count "Dersim" as a Kurdish incident. That was related Alevis. Koçgiri was also Alevi's incident but main members such as Alîşêr, Baytar Nuri (Dersimi) thought a rebellion as Kurdish national movement. Anyway, it's very clear that the current tepmplate is based on the popular Kurdish nationalist historiography. So this template is not neutral. Takabeg (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you can say the same thing. For example, the Society for the Rise of Kurdistan was behind the Koçgiri rebellion and the PKK's objective prior to Ocalan's arrest was Kurdish independence. Moreover, what happened at Dersim undoubtedly encouraged the Kurdish independence movement.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's your own POV pushing explanation. Don't remove {{Systemic bias}}. What do you want to do with this template ? Do you want to assemble as many topics as possible ? Or do you want to drive them to independent movement ? Takabeg (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You are using the wrong kind of template. Moreover, your argument of "systemic bias" is ludicrous. It is obvious that the Society for the Rise of Kurdistan that was behind the Koçgiri rebellion was for Kurdish independence. It is not a POV that a massacre of Kurds at Dersim inevitably spurred on the Kurdish independence movement (how could it not). The PKK was pro-independence prior to Ocalan's capture (where he clearly was pressured by the Turkish government to announce that the PKK was no longer pro-independence). So where is the POV? I think this template should be a useful template. The independence movement already exists.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The conflict that started in 1984, has been focused on obtaining status for Kurds, and "democratic autonomy" (http://en.firatnews.com/index.php?rupel=article&nuceID=276). If there is an independence movement, this is not the main Kurdish movement. The project of both legal and illegal organizations including PKK, BDP, KCK is "democratic autonomy". Please restrain from making original research. Kavas (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You can argue that we could change the name of this template to "democratic autonomy" movement. I would not agree on this either. If you think we need a template which would only include Kurdish movements, regardless of the name of the template, you can create a new template. This is the template focused on the conflict started in 1984. Kavas (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think that you need a template that is dedicated to 1984 onwards then please create one. I have contributed a great deal to this template and you are not going to delete my work with one edit.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaignbox Kurdish Rebellions[edit]

Nipsonanomhmata, do you want to edit this template [1], to make it a complete template for the parties other than PKK that joined Kurdish Rebellions since the 1920's? Kavas (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go and create a separate template for what you want?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kavas's work is much more neutral and less-propagated. But not completely neutral. If someome want to put every historical affairs in single template, the title Kurdish independence movement must be changed. Takabeg (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
To?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
To Template:Kurdish nationalist organisations. We have to remove some elements that are irrelevant or less-related with these organizations and remake Template:Turkey-PKK conflict. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
ok. I agree. I'll let you make the changes.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)