Talk:October 2007 clashes in Hakkari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Please discuss future changes, the previous edit history was lost! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) You merged the larger article into the smaller! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit history is there. -- Cat chi? 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
10 October incidents has nothing to do with this, that is a non-notable incident with little to no international reaction unlike this one which is on the headlines of any newspaper I have seen. It isn't the first time such a thing happened. PKK is not some sort of an army that can "retaliate". They carry out isolated attacks. The "obvious" claim you make is your own original research. -- Cat chi? 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No reason to remove it. Part of ongoing struggle and cross-border attacks --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The scope of this article is not such a thing. You are welcome to create a seperate article. -- Cat chi? 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you created the problem :). The name Daglica incident referred to yesterdays attacks. Now 2007 Iraq-Turkey cross-border attacks or 2007 cross-border attacks on Trkey would reflect all attacks in 2007--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open for having two articles: Yuksekova incident and the Daglica one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
so, your claim "too precise name" doesn't fit. Look at other milhist articles e.g. Bokhundjara incident or Zar'it-Shtula incident, please do compromise don't rv everything --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That incident is not notable. We do not have articles on every incident. -- Cat chi? 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Which? I saw both on BBC, Aljazeera front pages--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Yuksekova as said: "biggest attack in years", Daglica is still on the frontpages ... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then create a seperate article. You can further disambiguate by date (21 October 2007). Right now I am a bit busy expanding material on the 21 October attacks. -- Cat chi? 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
By having two articles, we surely won't need an article about the 10 Oct. shelling. Now, I cannot force you to accept a name, but I'm naming the first as October 7, 2007 Yüksekova incident --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21 October 2007 cross-border attacks on Turkey name - POV problem

Really, this name creates a POV and factual accuracy problem. That name doesn't reflect the Turkish reprisal attacks. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

also, Turkey was not attacked, or use attack on Turkish troops or attack IN Turkey. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I insisted on incident as a NPOV term. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How is an attack carried on employees (soldiers) and people (wedding convoy) of the Turkish state not an attack on Turkey? Even the BBC calls it an attack: "The strongly worded statement came after a Kurdish attack from Iraq in which 12 Turkish soldiers were killed". This was a terrorist atack as far as Turkey is concerned by the way. -- Cat chi? 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
my suggestion is attack in Turkey, but I wish to hear other thoughts also, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is NPOV issue here. I think your problem with the heading is that it doesn't reflect what happened yesterday: PKK attacked Turkey and Turkey responded. I think it is normal to expect a Turkish military response (similar to the fact that dog biting man isn't news), there is no need to indicate in the header that the TSK reponded.
I think the heading should change, I suggest "21 October 2007 PKK cross border raid on Turkey" or "21 October 2007 PKK cross border raid" as I don't think PKK raided more than one country yesterday.
Mdozturk 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
hmm not a good argument.. you think it's normal to expect a Turkish military response, maybe not others... Also, the example with the dog biting isn't appropriate here.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The argument is valid, in fact you were not able to respond to it. Just saying "no" is not a response.
Some headlines: BBC: "Turkish troops missing after raid", NY Times: "8 Turkish Soldiers Are Missing in Kurdish Attack", Washington Post "Kurds From Iraq Kill 17 Soldiers in Turkey". None of the headlines about this story is like the following: "Kurds attack, Turks respond".
Pick any country in the world, the military will defend itself when attacked by a large group of armed people.
Mdozturk 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
the same thing happened in Zar'it-Shtula incident, and it doesn't have a name "2006 Hezbollah attack on Israel", it has a NPOV name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
similar headlines: "Israelis Enter Lebanon After Attacks" [1], "Northern attack: 11 wounded; 2 soldiers [kidnapped"http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3274258,00.html] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have shown you several newspaper articles which talk about the event that occured on the 21st. The titles all state an attack by Kurds in Iraq against Turks in Turkey. If you found an article that named this event as "such-and-such incident" I would say lets consider it. However, this is not the case and therefore the name should stand. Please remove the POV tag.Mdozturk 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well objectively, 200 PKK militants trained at Northern Iraq PKK military bases (which are daily informed to U.S. and Iraq governments to do some action against by Turkey) entered from Northern Iraq carrying heavy weapons; blew up a bridge attacked a military base on the other side, killed 12 but some says 16, took 8 hostages but some says 10, then bunch of soldiers were injured, and unlike in Zar'it-Shtula; PKK militants weren't trying to free anyone. They were just attacking a military base because it is their daily regular job. I mean if you don't want to call it an "attack", a "battle" could be called because there was a battle and 32 out of about 200 were killed. I wrote the article in Turkish Wikipedia; and I called it "21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK battle" because this -what you call incident- happens regularly. Just like the 7th October 2007 Şırnak PKK battle where another dozen of Turkish soldiers were killed too. Incident occurs once, not regularly. If Slovenia regularly attacked Croatia; and let's say, their troops came from the sea with heavy weapons, blew up a military base's bridge, killed 12 Croatian soldiers and took 8 hostages; would you call it an incident ? And how about Slovenia regularly attacked -let's say- since 1984 almost all cities of Croatia. Would it look like an incident to you? Or would it look like a battle or an attack?

Don't get me wrong dear "Korku tanrısı"; I believe you're writing amazing articles on battles and military; and your contributions are wonderful for Wikipedia in all languages (since all of them are translated in many languages; and actually I'm one of the translators of your articles to Turkish). I believe that you are a very intelligent person; yet on this case of NPOV I don't think you're right on the "Incident" issue. This "thing" could be called at worst "21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK Battle" (which I called in Turkish); yet it would be unjust to not call it an attack.

Some people who have military bases in another country (which is controlled by anarchy) who happens to be your neighbor is attacking your country quite heavily equipped with weapons is called an "attack". And as a military base and a country; what you have against them is a "battle".

I'm removing the NPOV tag; if you don't find it vicious. And I would love to discuss with you this issue and your knowledge on Middle-East (because I completely worship your articles) privately on MSN or E-mail or even here.

Cheers, Onur --Nerval 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the turkish version: "21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK battle". I suggest naming this 21 October 2007 Hakkari attack. So NPOV, my ideas and yours get a win. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't a verb. 911 talks about terrorist attacks while September 11, 2001 attacks talks about "attacks". the PKK did not enter Turkey just for a photo opportunity, there was an attack. The name of the article is perfectly fine. it is inline with verifiable info and no one is claiming the contrary. This was a cross border attack. -- Cat chi? 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of new suggestions by user Nerval and name on Turkish lg. wikipedia I changed to 21 October 2007 Hakkari PKK attack. I wanted the location included, others like Nerval the word attack. As a sign of good will I also added PKK to make it precise. White cat, please respect thoughts of other users, u are not alone here, and do not WP:OWN! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not care what the Turkish version is named. The only person not respecting others is you. You have little to no meaningful addition to the page yet you dictate what its title must be even if it is perfectly neutral. The word "attack" bothers you which is jawdroping. -- Cat chi? 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
well, I notice you're the one that's pushing ONE ONLY version of the name, I'm at least doing compromise with others (so no evidence here of "dictation" on my behalf). Please refrain from personal attacks. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I know Cat personally and I have met and drank beer with him; yet I think TheFEARgod is right on this issue. Dear Cat, dear friend; TheFEARGod isn't an enemy; he is an extremely knowledgeable person on battles. Sometimes he needs more information just like anybody else; but I don't believe he is trying to side with anyone. So please; "chill out bro" :) --Nerval 00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a battle between two conventional armies. It is called a "terrorist attack" on many sources. It's original title was neutral enough unless people have problems against territorial integrity of Turkey which would be a minority opinion. -- Cat chi? 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an issue with the current title imo, it sounds like the name of the org is Hakkari PKK. I think we can just remove Hakkari. If PKK made any other attack, it did not get publicity (there were some bombs found near schools, that got some publicity). Does PKK (not PJAK) ever attack any other country anymore (I know it attacked some Arabs some years ago)? Syrian leaders of PKK might not allow it, I guess. DenizTC 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove PKK, a bunch of similar attacks have only the location in the name? For NPOV, let's keep both. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I think we need a time out. This is being confusing. Here are the different elements of the topic. How many do you disagree with and why. Things that may be obvious to you is not automatically clear to me so I may need an explanation.

The title of the article is supposed to represent the content of the article.

  1. Full date, because there had been multiple attacks in the same moth full date should be in the title. Date can be a disambiguation like this: Foo (21 October 2007). Date can actually be dropped completely.
  2. No one is disputing that this was an attack. Calling it as such is not factually incorrect. Even the PKK considers it an attack I believe making it unanimous. PKK's presence there wasn't a coincidence. Calling it anything but an attack or perhaps a "raid" is problematic as it will not accurately represent the content of the article.
  3. Both employees of the Turkish government (soldiers) and citizens of Turkey (soldiers as well as civilians) were targeted. The attack had taken place on Turkish soil. Therefore everything indicates that the attack was aimed against Turkey. Because the attack did not rake place on a spesific location like a city (London bombings) or a ship (USS Cole bombing), we can't accurately use that as a description. The name of the province or its sub-province division is to broad of a location are not accurately descriptive of the location of the attacks as they are too broad. The attack had generated a country wide response and the counter attack wasn't restricted to Turkey. I suppose the name of the village may be used, aka something like "attack near Dağlıca".
  4. Attack was indeed by the PKK. I dislike putting abbreviations into the page title immensely unless they are absolutely necessary. Generally standing most such attacks do not have the attacker in the title. Consider the 2005 London bombings and USS Cole bombing (United States Ship Cole bombing) articles.
  5. Not that this is completely title related... Most news outlets refer to the incident as a "terrorist attack". As per "words to avoid", it is out of the question to put that (terrorist) in the title. However the use of the current infobox is problematic as it should only be used for conflicts between conventional long term campaigns which for the most part take place between two conventional armed forces. The original {{Infobox terrorist attack}} (which really is a redirect to {{Infobox civilian attack}}) would be better. Consider the USS Cole bombing. # Title should accurately represent what kind of an attack this is. This was indeed a cross-border attack. No one is disputing this.

My suggestion of a compromise would be Cross-border raid near Dağlıca or Cross-border attack near Dağlıca.

Should there be a full scale invasion to Iraq by Turkey, this article can be completely incorporated into it as "background" info so keep that in mind. The article is currently notable as stand alone attack unless it is incorporated into a more general incident such as a more general invasion or incursion.

-- Cat chi? 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro describing terrorists in header

Is it necessary to list all the different nations that call PKK terrorists in the lead? Shouldn't the lead say who the PKK is and what they want as the first priority, and let the body say what people say about them? Squee23 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I think not. That info is already in PKK's article. The info is true, but can cause POV forking..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
POV forking? I am not saying they are terrorists, I am saying the US and others call them as "terrorist". It is a verifiable and reliable info, the majority opinion. It helps identify that 'Kurdistan Workers Party' isn't some random peaceful political party. -- Cat chi? 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pls read again my post, yes it is true statement, but already in PKK article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't mater. A short introduction on what PKK is in the eyes of the international community is only sane. -- Cat chi? 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
PKK is that and more in the eyes of "the international community". It just looks excesive here, and even makes me question the neutrality of this article, and I know what they are. What PKK stands for is already covered extensively in the PKK article, so please don't make the introduction sound like Turkish talking point. Carewolf 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How is this international opinion the "Turkish" talking point? If you do not put it there, you make PKK sound like your average political party and not an armed group recognized by some as a "terrorist organization" which is based on verifiable reliable and neutral sources. When we talk about Condoleezza Rice we almost always mention that she is the US secretary of state and not some random woman, likewise the status of this organization should be present at least once in the header. -- Cat chi? 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

I am having difficulty just following the developments let alone write about it. We may consider expanding the article to include the previous attack (something I originally opposed). How do you think this should be covered? We could also write about the individual attacks as we are doing now. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we need a new name (like 2007 Hakkari battles?) and decide by consensus --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
These aren't battles though. I do want to avoid terms that are used pretty much by conventional warfare. All separate incidents are unrelated for the most part. For example today a group of PKK militants were ambushed while they were preparing for an ambush in Semdinli area. 30 of them had been killed. This PKK cell is completely independent and seperate from the 21 October group. This is how asymmetric warfare is conducted. Not through a confrontation by two sides as you would see in a battle. I am not completely certain what would be the best way to refer to the article(s). Perhaps October 2007 attacks in Hakkari... but then again this will likely to continue to November and some of the counter-attack by Turkey isn't even in Turkey. Perhaps focusing on the incident rather than location would be better. 2007 cross-border attacks or 2007 cross-border attacks on Turkey-Iraq border. I dono what the proper name would be. -- Cat chi? 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This kind of conflict is rather unique. -- Cat chi? 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess Fall 2007 Hakkari skirmishes might be a better header, but as PKK groups consist of small numbers while Turkish army in the operations is over a hundred thousand this may not be good enough. Khutuck 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
PKK preforms hit and run tactics with few people. They fight until helicopters arrive or something. On the other hand Turkey preforms her attacks until the PKK militants escape. It isn't much of a skirmish when one side is running away and the others are following. -- Cat chi? 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My idea is October 2007 clashes in Hakkari (clashes includes both attacks an reprisals that occurred) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari? -- Cat chi? 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll be bold as there is a general agreement. -- Cat chi? 00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minibus attack

http://www.turkses.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=35 Is this relevant to this article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article will stay as "Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari", this link is relevant. Khutuck 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the first major attack by the PKK this month aimed completely at civilians. I'd prefer other sources to compliment. Not that I am disputing the material there, but you know what I mean. -- Cat chi? 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New clashes

..were reported these days (with PKK deaths reported). As I failed to follow them can someone update the article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guns are still hot. I want to add it when reports finalize. -- Cat chi? 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
On October 28 8,000 Turkish troops with air support carried out a major operation in Tunceli Province, killing 20 Kurdish guerrillas according to the army. Well that wasn't in Hakkari. Should we now change to Fall 2007 clashes in eastern Turkey?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
or Fall 2007 Turkey-PKK clashes --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This may include Northern Iraq or western Turkey. A bomb was placed in Kocaeli area during an anti-PKK rally probably by the PKK. Few people were wounded. I really am unsure. Maybe a Fall 2007 clashes in Turkey but that doesn't feel right. After all these incidents are all isolated here and there. -- Cat chi? 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I would second Fall 2007 Turkey-PKK clashes, unless in some cases they are fighting non-PKK guerillas. Joshdboz 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an inter government war. The fighting merely happens to take place in Turkey. Other such articles, even full scale wars such as the Battle of Waterloo, are titled over location not combatants. -- Cat chi? 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA?

Should this article be nominated for GA status? Baristarim 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Fall" in title

"Fall" is an American English term, could a more neutral terms such as "October" be used? LukeSurl t c 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)