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

POV

• 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 木 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 木 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 木 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 木 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 木 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

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 木 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 木 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 木 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 木 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 木 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

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 木 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)

Kurds in Turkey

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 木 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)