Talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Infobox

I have cleaned up the infobox again, leaving most of your changes and objections this time and trying my best to make it as acceptable as possible. However, importantly, keeping it short and tidy. I hope this clears this matter for good.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits, it looks much better now. How about moving Hizbullah explanation from infobox to notes? We can add it as [note].--Khutuck (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That is possible, however then we would have to add the note like 3x, so maybe it is better like this.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Dates should remain there, see Iraq War. Kavas (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not against this information being there, however it is already in the infobox (notes section), so you don't need to type it 3x, that just makes the infobox unnececerily longer and messier. Show me 1 example in the Iraq War infobox were they type the same thing 3x?Kermanshahi (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Dates are written in the infobox in Iraq War tempalate. See Kavas (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make it shorter keep dates in the template, add addditional notes for what happened in 1993 and 2003. Kavas (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
YEs there are dates in the Iraq War infobox, but not long explenations and especialy not repetetive informations.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the infobox should include the Turkish military rather than just "Turkey". I also think it should sunder the Kurdish paramilitaries (PKK, PJAK, TAK) from the non-paramilitaries. Otherwize, readers won't know which groups ar fighting and which groups arn't fighting. This is how I think it should look. ~Asarlaí 01:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Kurdish-Turkish conflict, there was clear consensus that the previous title was no good. The new title had some consensus in the discussion below. If future discussion develops consensus around a better title than this, a further move may be warranted. There are dozens of redirects already in existance to cover most possible combinations of the terms describing this conflict. I have moved protected the article for 30 days to prevent unilateral moves against the consensus in the discussion. Mike Cline (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict → Kurdish conflict in Turkey – Now I bring this subject up again, this article needs a name change. This name was put simply because some Turkish members complained about the use of Kurdish-Turkish conflict, and maybe that is POV, but the current name is simply incorrect. This is not merely a conflict between the Turkey and the PKK, but between Turkey and various different Kurdish insurgent groups. We don't call the Afghanistan war article "US-Taliban conflict," either. Now on top of the fact that the name is inaccurate, it is also completely made-up by some people here. Nowhere on the internet is this conflict ever refereed to as the Turkey - Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict, it is referred to as the Kurdish conflict, Kurdistan conflict or Kurdish insurgency, as has been sourced in the article. Or in case of Turkish media they often say Kurdish issue or Kurdish problem. Usage of the word Kurdistan has always been controversial among Turks, so we better not use that but saying insurgency (or conflict) in South-East Turkey would be inaccurate as well since the PKK is active all over the country, actually, with their operations mainly centered in the South-East. Personally I consider Kurdish Conflict in Turkey as the best option (since Kurdish conflict, could also refer to Kurdish conflicts with Iran or Iraq), but I would also like to note how in case of Iraq (and remember Wikipedia is not supposed to have double standards), weq=%22Although%20there%20is%20some%20evidence%20that%20Hizbullah%20operated%20against%20the%20PKK%20in%20the%20early%22 have articles: First Kurdish Iraqi War and Second Kurdish Iraqi War, literally referring to a Kurdish Iraqi War (rather than Iraq - Kurdistan Democratic Party conflict), but I agree in this case that may be to controversial. So my proposal is Kurdish Conflict in Turkey but if anyone else can come up with a term which is both factually accurate and neutral, please bring suggest, I am open to all suggestions. In fact I would have moved the article myself, a long time ago if it wasn't for the fact that I want some consensus here. If, however, no-one is willing to be reasonable, I will seek administrator involvement to have this inaccurate, made up and in fact POV name removed.Relisting again see below Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC) relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Kermanshahi (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, if this name stays as it is a second article titled Turkey-Kurdish Conflict should be made. Machinarium (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Turkey-Kurdish Conflict is more accurate than Kurdish conflict in Turkey because many battles have taken place outside of sovereign Turkey, specifically Northern Iraq. WikifanBe nice 04:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you two agree. I would like to add that looking at the name this article as on other wikipedias, you can see at the bottom of this article: [ca:Conflicte turc-kurd], [de:Türkisch-kurdischer Konflikt], [fr:Question kurde en Turquie], [hr:Tursko-kurdski sukob], [sh:Tursko-kurdski sukob], [sv:Kurdkonflikten], so it seems manyother wikipedia's have used correct titles. English wikipedia must follow soon.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent article in Reuters about the arrest of İlker Başbuğ, referred to the conflict as a "three-decade-old Kurdish insurgency that has cost over 40,000 lives".Kermanshahi (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support some rename, relisting to allow more discussion of what the new name should be. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal has the disadvantage that the conflict has not been waged only in Turkey, as is noted above. "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" seems indicated, although presumably this would require a longer introduction (back to the 1930s, certainly). Why this order? To be alphabetical. Subnumine (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Please weigh-in with support for one or the other. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Per google search, "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" shows 93.400 results and "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" shows 15.800 results, therefore I think Kurdish-Turkish conflict is the more common name and thus should bwe used. BTW, search results for "Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict" are 21.200, "Kurdish conflict in Turkey" shows 50.400 and "Kurdish insurgency in Turkey" 11.800, ["Kurdish insurgency" Turkey] showing 47.700 and ["Kurdish conflict" Turkey] 127.000.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose In the international media,like Al Jazeera [1], BBC [2] the name used is Turkey-PKK conflict, hence it is the most common name. Actually the conflict is between the state of Turkey and pro-Turkey Kurdish villagers and a party (PKK/KCK) and its allies&affliates (TAK, DHKP/C, Devrimci Karargah, PJAK). Hezbollah is only targeted by PKK now, and they do not use arms against any side, either PKK or Turkish Armed Forces. The main problem in Kurdish-Turkish conflict is that it implies as if two peoples are in a civil war, in fact there's no civil war in Turkey yet. To the contrary, at least half of Kurdish people vote for pro-Islamist parties like AK Party, SP, HAS Party, even some vote for CHP, a social democratic Kemalist party, and many Kurds do not support the PKK and even fight against it.

Google search gives

"Turkey-PKK conflict" 67,900

( I found that "Turkey - PKK conflict" gave 146,000 results, but I cannot understand why not 67,900 as above. )

"Turkey –Kurdistan Workers Party conflict" 21,300 -> If you add "Turkey-PKK conflict" + "Turkey –Kurdistan Workers Party conflict", you get 89,200

"PKK - Turkey conflict" 13,600

"Turkish - PKK conflict" 10,600

"Turkey – Kurd conflict" 5,090

"Kurdish conflict in Turkey" 50,200

"Kurdish conflict" 165,000

"Kurdish-Turkish conflict" 92,600

"Turkish-Kurdish conflict" 15,800

"Kurdish insurgency in Turkey" 11,500.

I think the name should not be changed. Kavas (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: The conflict is not between the PKK "and it's allies" and the Turkish state, but between the Kurdish national movement and the Turkish state (+some militias they use). Labeling all that is Kurdish as PKK or PKK ally is simply Turkish propaganda and as I have had to stress before wikipedia should not serve as a propaganda machine/ The only reason Turkey-PKK conflict even showed up in google is because wikipedia used this inaccurate name, so some other sites copied it. Due to the use of this inaccurate name we are also unable to cover this subject properly in the article. "Since 1984 Kurdish resistance to Turkification encompassed both a peaceful political struggle to obtain basic civil rights for Kurds within Turkey and a violent armed struggle to obtain a separate Kurdish state" [3] and this article should be able to cover all of that and not be limited to nitpicking about what is related and what is unrelated to the PKK. Now of course with 40 thousand to 100 thousand casualties this is a civil war, and if the Erdogan regime wants to continue deluding themselves it doesn't change the hard fact that a civil war = rebels fighting a government, which is exactly what this is, Kurdish or Turkish. Here are some sources referring to it as a civil war [4] [5]. Now of course there are some Kurds fighting with the regime, there are some election results which may or may not have been riged, ect. but that shouldn't be relevant in picking an accurate name. Saddam Hussein claimed to have won large election victories, including among Kurds, and he had his own Jash he used to fight against the Kurds, but the respective article is still called the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict rather than the Iraq - Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan conflict, although, undoubtedly Saddam supporters which (like Erdogan supporters) would argue the Kurds fully backed their state. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict isn't called the Israeli-Palestinian Liberation Organisation conflict just because some extremists claim Palestinians don't exist (like Kemalists claim for Kurds), or because there are several hundred Palestinians serving in the Israeli army. And let me remind you of the fact that every insurgency has population fighting on two sides, we don't call the Iraqi insurgency something else because there were Iraqis fighting with the US, we don't call the Shia insurgency in Yemen something else because there are Shias with the government. We cannot keep implying double standards when it comes to Turkey. But forget all that, the main point is: the name is inaccurate, not all Kurdish groups are aligned with the PKK and so the article name is incorrect. Now we have to find a more correct name, so instead of trying to dismiss the issue, you ought to be focussing on. Now I can actually understand you may not want to use the name Turkish-Kurdish conflict, however something Kurdish insurgency is more more NPOV and commonly used, and unless you are suggest (as Ataturk did), that Kurds don't exist, I don't see any reason for you anyone with good intentions to oppose such naming.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As for Google Search, these are all the names, both POV and NPOV that could be used for this conflict (some of which practically unusable, but so is the current name), per how many hits they get:

"Kurdish issue" 545.000
"Kurdish issue" Turkey 401.000
"Kurdish resistance" 365.000
"Kurdish Question" Turkey 342.000
"Kurdish Question in Turkey" 182.000
"Kurdish resistance" Turkey 181.000
"Kurdish conflict" 167.000
"Kurdish conflict" Turkey 127.000
"Civil War in Turkey" 154.000
"Turkish civil war" 103.000
"Kurdish issue in Turkey" 95.300
"Kurdish-Turkish conflict" 88.300
"Kurdish uprising" 88.500
"Kurdish rebellion" 62.400
"Kurdish uprising" Turkey 51.200
"Kurdish insurgency" 47.200
"Kurdish rebellion" Turkey 44.100
"Kurdish insurgency" Turkey 42.200
"Turkey-PKK conflict" 68.400
"Turkey-Kurdish conflict" 53.500
"Kurdish conflict in Turkey" 50.700
"Kurdistan War" 30.700
"Kurdish War" Turkey 25.500
"Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict" 21.700
""Kurdish terrorism" Turkey 18.500
"Turkish-Kurdish conflict" 15.700
"Turkish-Kurdish War" 15.700
"Kurdish-Turkish War" 14.700
"PKK terrorism in Turkey" 14.000
"PKK-Turkey conflict" 13.400
"Kurdish insurgency in Turkey" 10.900
"Kurdistan conflict" 8.020
"Kurdistan War" Turkey 6.910
"Kurdistan conflict" Turkey 6.120
"Kurdish uprising in Turkey" 5.140
""Turkish occupation of Kurdistan" 4.860
"Kurdish terrorism in Turkey" 3.960
"Kurdish War of Independence" 3.660
"Turkey-Kurdistan conflict" 3.280
"Kurdish War of Independence" Turkey 3.040
"Turkish-Kurdish civil war" 2.490
"Kurdish resistance in Turkey" 2.340
"Kurdish War in Turkey" 1.170
"Kurdish-Turkish civil war" 1.080

And in Turkish:

  • "Türk-Kürt çatışması" 484.000
  • "Kürt isyanına" 7.000
  • "Türkiye-PKK çatışması" 6.170

As you can see, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Seemingly even among Turkish speakers, the use of Turkish-Kurdish conflict by far exceeds the use of this artificial name, invented by a few wikipedia members several years ago.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move discussion

added section heading to separate from closed RM above--Mike Cline (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - Seems I'm a bit too late. "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" name implies an inter-ethnic conflict; which is not the case. There is not a conflict between Turkish and Kurdish ethnicities. This article contains information about the conflict is between Turkish state and Kurdish seperatist group PKK only, it does not include the information about BDP, political wing of PKK or other conflicts such as the uprisings of 1920's. Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict should be the name. This article should be reverted back to original name as soon as possible.--Khutuck (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not true actually. The article does contain information about the BDP, about protest, about Hizbullah Kurdi, about TAK, ect.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It contains only some bits of information, not enough info to rename this article as current name. Turkey-PKK conflict is a part of a bigger conflict, namely "Kurdish-Turkish conflict"; which includes all the uprisings since 1920s, both military and political events, economics of the area, all the political parties of Kurds from HEP to BDP, also should include Iraqi-Kurdish clash in 1990s and Turkish attitude to Kurdish refugees, etc. Kurdish-Turkish conflict is not only limited to PKK. Also as you can see in infobox, it states this is a "Part of Kurdish rebellions, which can be renamed as "Kurdish-Turkish conflict(s)".--Khutuck (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the only problem I do have with the current "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" name, which is that it is not time specific. But than again, it doesn't need to be, for instance we have an article called "Iraq War" and it doesn't refer to all the wars that ever happened in Iraq (and so there are many more examples). But what is clear from Turkish history is that, there were a number of Kurdish uprisings in the 1920s and 30s, and then after the Dersim rebellion, everything calmed down for a long period of time, until the 1970s when Kurdish nationalism started to grow and this started a new conflict, which is where this specific article is about. The article Kurdish rebellions covers all the major rebellions starting from the Koçkiri rebellion, and these were not one long uprising, but separate uprisings. And as you can see, all of them have separate articles, including the latest one, which is this one. Now the "Background" section of this particular article, is unsourced and factually correct + it isn't actually about the "Background" of the conflict, but about the conflict itself. This section needs to be re-written to include information about the split of Kurdish inhabited areas after WW1, the Koçkiri rebellion, the Sheikh Said Rebellion, the Ararat rebellion, the Dersim rebellion, and the situation of Kurds from 1938-1974. As for bringing more focus to the Kurdish political movement, we can make a separate sections in this article ('cause now we only have a "the conflict" section, refering to the armed conflict) about the Kurdish political movement (HEP, BDP, ect.) and about the civil disobedience/protest campaign Serhildan. Kermanshahi (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would like to voice my support for the page move. This article should cover more than just the armed pkk insurgency, namely the entire conflict which includes also for example alleged repression of kurds in the past or non-violent protest movements which had nothing to do with the PKK yet are part of a conflict. If some truly miss the old title, pages like PKK insurgency or Timeline of the PKK insurgency could cover both insurgency and counter-insurgency.Machinarium (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We need a seperate article on those events. This article currently covers only the conflict between Turkey and PKK. Kurdish rebellions are a much bigger concept. You can think Kurdish rebellions as World War I, and PKK-Turkey conflict as Western Front. If we rename Western Front as WWI, we cannot cover the whole story. PKK-Turkey conflict is only a part of the greater Kurdish-Turkish conflict. --Khutuck (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, those rebellions already have their own articles. This is about the current conflict, which involves the PKK, but also the rest of the Kurdish nationalist movement.Kermanshahi (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Other than PKK, what kind of a conflict there exists with Kurdish nationalist movement and rest of the country? --Cerian (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Khutuck. The title is misleading and non-specific (all Kurdish rebellions were Kurdish-Turkish conflicts). Also google results are not a good argument for rename/move - we count only reliable sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is between Turkish Republic State and PKK, not between Turks and Kurds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.28.144 (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No this is a conflict between the Republic of Turkey and the Kurdish Nationalist Movement, which includes but is not exclusively the PKK. Censoring the word Kurd is Kemalist POV.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

um, so this is a conflict between the Turkish Republic and the PKK, and not an ethnic conflict at all? Has this anonymous ever even heard about WP:V? Search for "ethnic conflict" and "Kurds" on google books, and look at a few thousand quotable references that this is, in fact, an ethnic conflict.[6] --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose per Khutuck. The case is similiar to the conflict that is Iran-PJAK conflict, the article therefore reverted back to it's formal name. Having more or less Google is utter non-sense aswell. It's about which one is correct, not popular. For example when I search "Homer" on Google Images I get far more results releated to Homer Simpson than Homer himself, so should we also redirect Homer to Homer Simpson? Nozdref (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Turkey-PKK conflict" is not the correct name. It inacurately labels all Kurdish nationalists as members of the PKK and buys into the Kemalist idea that Kurds do not exist and anyone which opposes their Kurdish policy is a member of a terrorist group, rather than an ethnic group. So therefore the name is biased, and inaccurate - since there are many other groups participating in both the insurgency and the political struggle.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the name "Turkey-PKK conflict". As stated earlier in this discussion, by Kavas I think, international media also refers the conflict as Turkey-PKK conflict. And as I stated just above your post, this is similiar to "Iran-PJAK conflict" but somehow I don't see you being so keen on renaming it to "Kurdish-Iranian conflict". Judging from flags in your userpage, I understand why. This also is enough proof that you lack neutrality on this matter. All you do is here to refer anything you don't like about as "Kemalist propangda", it's all Kemalists job, there are no Turks but Kemalists, it's all Turks whoops Kemalists that do the evil things on this article, oh the irony. Well, the problem here is not name but yourself. Get a grip. Take your paranoia and insults elsewhere. Nozdref (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic how you you as Turk which is trying to push for Turkish government line on this issue by labeling the entire Kurds as PKK, is calling me biased for being Kurdish. Look, in Turkey the existence of Kurds may not be recognized, and your biased media may label all Kurds which reject the Kemalist principal that all inhabitants of Turkey are ethnic Turks, as terrorists or PKK members, but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't require wikipedia to use such extremist views. Clearly, there are dozens of Kurdish organisations involved in this conflict and therefore the name Turkey-PKK conflict (which also happens to be extremely uncommon) is factually incorrect. Also, this is partially about the political and non-violent movement for Kurdish rights in Turkey, labeling them all as PKK members would clearly be pro-Erdogan POV in a very disputed issue. And again, we do not label the Kurdish-Iraqi conflict as "Iraqi-KDP&PUK conflict" or the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) as "US-Taliban conflict" or Israeli–Palestinian conflict as "Israeli-Hamas conflict" or the Israeli–Lebanese conflict as the "Israeli-Hezbollah conflict" or the Iraq War as the "US-AQI conflict" - there is no reason for double standards when concerning Turkey and if the Iran-PJAK conflict wasn't just narrowly confined to PJAK organisation than a name change could be possible there as well, although in fact the PJAK is (or more accurately, was) part of a broader low-level anti-regime insurgency that has been ongoing in Iran since the revolution (but does not have an article on wikipedia). But that ofcourse is an issue for that article's talk-page.Kermanshahi (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, in case you didn't notice, despite your claim that I am biased here, all those from neutral countries and background supported or strongly supported the article's move based on rational facts (which is that this conflict is not just confined to the PKK but many other organisations), while the only users opposing, are Turkish, so I wouldn't go there if I were you... Kermanshahi (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm not a Turkish government agent nor I am calling you biased just becooooose you're Kurdish, and nor I'm trying to delete the word "Kurd" or something like that, so stop trying to create useless drama by playing ethnicity. Ironically, you didn't even know whether I was Turk or not while typing that. Your main argument on this was "Oh this has more Google hits, oh Google that and this". How many of those searches are actually releated to the conflict, and how many of those hits in Google actually hold correct information and are reliable? As I said before, it's not about popularity but which one is correct. That was yet also another useless arguement you used to adopt "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" instead of "Turkish-Kurdish conflict". The reason I gave Iran-PJAK conflict as an example was because of it being most similiar and closest to Turkey-PKK conflict than all of conflicts you listed above. The enemy of Republic of Turkey is PKK, Turkey is not at war with it's own Kurdish population. That's also why international media like BBC and Al Jazeera refer it as "Turkey-PKK conflict" and I happen to believe it's much more valid than some random Google hits. And apparently now you say we can't do the same rename you desired so much to Iran-PJAK conflict because PJAK is the only oppenent that Iran has on this cause; or because somehow PJAK has different ideology than PKK and unlike PKK they aren't really an orginaztion that are pushing for independent Kurdistan but to replace regime? This is not hyprocrisy or what? Also let me say one thing, most of the orginazations listed as belligerents on PKK side are pretty much unknown (not very much heard about) and usually considered to be different branches of PKK (apart from Islamist ones and those listed as past cooperators). Ironically again, as expected you now are accusing me of being Kemalist while also accusing me of being defender of "pro-Erdoğan" POVs. I'm pretty sure you had no clue about that those two being completely oppose things while accusing me of being those. That's just a short explaination of why you're being biased. Nozdref (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly pushing Turkish POV again, because most of these organisations are not part of the PKK nor affiliated with them, but according to those who deny the existence of the Kurdish people (the Turkish regime) have decided to label all Kurdish people who oppose the regime, as members of the PKK. By using this, you are representing the Turkish claim as 100% correct and undisputed, while Kurdish claims are brushed off and assumed to be untrue. That is POV. Now the fact is, most other wikipedia's call the conflict Kurdish-Turkish conflict, the name is very much in line with other articles on this wikipeida (and note that Saddam Hussein supporters could claim Iraq was not at war with it's Kurdish population either, but merely with the KDP and Israelis could claim they are not at war with the Palestinian people but merely Hamas) and it is more commonly used. But remember, I didn't suggest this name. I only said the name Turkey-PKK conflict is factually incorrect (because of other violent and non-violent groups involvement) and POV (because it buys into the notion that all Kurds which reject the Turkish regime's treatment of Kurdish population, weather they are human rights activists, laywers, politicians, demonstrators or fighters as members of the PKK) and therefore it must be changed. I suggest for Turks to join the discussion and come up with a non-biased and factually correct name, however most of you refused to participate in a constructive discussion and therefore all neutral and non-Turkish users agreed to changing the name to this. And in case you haven't noticed, there is a clear pattern of Turkish users deleting the word Kurd from articles, deleting Kurdish names from articles and although you may have not been involved in such vandalism, it is impossible for me not to notice how Turks are trying to remove the word Kurd from this article as well. Unacceptable.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I read your post, and realize you're adding nothing but repeating same thing over and over which I already responded word-to-word previously. Not only that, you also are refusing to respond to points I made. Look, I repeat, nobody here is a Kemalist evil-doer nor trying to delete the word "Kurd" from article. Spamming same similiar thing over and over adds nothing, nor makes sense, it only makes you look hilarious aswell as making you sound paranoid. Ironically, the article Kurdish people is a featured article in Turkish Wikipedia, within Croatian one. And "other Wikipedia's" don't refer it as what you said, at least not more than the half. And ironically again, by renaming this article to "Kurdish–Turkish conflict" you yourself automatically refer Kurds as members of PKK, considering PKK is covering vast majority of the conflict and we're categorizing PKK as major combatant of "Kurdish side" since this rename. And as for your words on "people from neutral countries"... Look, noone else's nationality decides what's more neutral or correct, and being non-Turkish doesn't make you any much of a "neutral". As long as they don't make any comment that makes sense, their ethnical background is nothing to me. If a Turk, or if it pleases you, if a Kurd comes with up with good arguement that actually make sense and contributes to discussion I would take him as the interlocutor instead of some "neutral" Ugandan that says "Oh yes please do this". If you really want to rename something to "Kurdish–Turkish conflict" I say let's do it on "Kurdish rebellions" instead, similiar to the case in "Kurdish-Iranian conflict". Because the article "Kurdish rebellions" is a wider category that actually holds information about historical Kurdish-Turkish conflict rooting back to afterwards of WW1, and it only contains the conflict in Anatolia (Turkey) only and not "Kurdish rebellions" in general (outside Turkey). Nozdref (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly my argument was good enough to sway everyone that wasn't Turkish. Now I think you are the one that is repeating himself, so let's make myself clear here. If you manage to re-name the following articles: Iraq War to US-AQI conflict, War in Afghanistan (2001-present) to US-Taliban conflict, War in Somalia (2009-) to TFG-alShabaab conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Israel-Hamas conflict and 2011–2012 Syrian uprising as Syria-SNC conflict, than I will accept your argument. If not, then I conclude you are trying to force double standards onto your own country, which is unacceptable and POV. Have a nice time, further.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your arguement was the same above boosted with useless "Google hits" arguement. And I already explained why both were flawed arguements previously. If I'm repeating myself it's because you force me to do it by ignoring my points. You missed my point this time also and you still are trying hard to ignore almost every point I'm making. If you carefully read what I said before you would see I have responded this aswell. We must consider "Iran–PJAK conflict" as example for this article and rename it to Turkey–PKK conflict, because it's most releated ongoing (despite the recent ceasefire) conflict to this one than all of the conflicts you mentioned. So the rest are those I don't care about, since they're completely unreleated. I'm pretty sure the "neutral"s would already have acknowledged my point by now if they were still observing the discussion considering it's very clear. So please refer to what I wrote above, including the suggestion, if you were even bothered to read it at all. Nozdref (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no points. What is your point? Than Iran-PJAK conflict which refers to a small number of insignificant border skirmishes between Iranian borders guards and members of one particular group that took place over several periods, should be used as example here? Well point rejected. Now In this case, you are trying to label all Kurds as PKK, while there are clearly other organisations involved. Therefore the name you are proposing is factually incorrect and will not be used. Now if you want to change the name of Iran-PJAK conflict and expand it to any level of significance, go ahead, but Turkish double standards will not destroy this article as long as I am alive.Kermanshahi (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you can use your same "points" to get those other articles re-named. Until then this one will not be given a false and factually inaccurate name, that also happens to (coincidentally) be massively POV in favor of the Turkish government.Kermanshahi (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you for real? You've been refusing to respond anything I say by accusing me of being some special Turkish agent assigned to a mission in Wikipedia and you still are making those ridicilious claims. Judging from your previous discussions on this page, I see you are accusing anyone who disagree with you as a "Turkish government agent" or some "Kemalist" and automatically reject whatever they say. This paranoia is both sad and hilarious, and also annoying. I don't care about your hatred towards Atatürk and Turkey, I only respond to your words, and I'm not interested in renaming Iran-PJAK conflict, that's what I've been telling to you for days by now. PJAK's ideology is the same as the PKK, and I'm pretty sure you won't go ahead and say PJAK is fighting for a different cause (I believe I've told you this before, sigh). Since you implied you were against a renaming of Iran-PJAK conflict, and since it's the most releated conflict to Turkey-PKK conflict, the article should be restored to it's own name. You're puling about the same arugement "labeling Kurds as members PKK" billions of times, but by renaming this article to "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" you yourself regard all Kurds as members of the PKK since you're labeling PKK's fight as fight of Kurds. I've explained this right above your post which you clearly didn't even bothered to read since it came from a "Turkish government agent". Anyone with higher IQ than at least 70 would've already easily understood what I've been saying, gosh. Nozdref (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Iran-PJAK conflict article, was named after this article when it had the incorrect name. No matter how much you try to push POV, fact remains: PKK is not the only combatant in the conflict and thus that name is incorrect. Also, there is no practice on wikipedia of naming articles as "[country]-[largest insurgent group] conflict" so you are trying to push POV towards your own country. A POV which no-one except other Turks agree with. So sorry, not gonna happen (and you still don't have any arguments except for:this should be renamed after an article that was named after this article). You know what, I'm done with you. You don't have any arguments, just a stubborn belief that your country should be subjected to double standards no other country is subjected to. Come back once you've renamed those other articles in similar fashion "[country]-[largest insurgent group] conflict" until then your request ti implement double standards towards Turkey is rejected.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, for anyone who as any doubt about what is going on, here is just a recent evidence of how some Turkish users are trying to remove all usage of the word Kurd on wikipedia. Or look at the state of this article before I got there, where even the word Kurd had been replaced with Turk in the links, look at this article were this direct quote: "It was an attack by rightists on leftists, Turks on Kurds, Sunnis (probably Kurdish as well as Turkish) on Alevis." was turned into " It was an attack by rightists on leftists, Sunnis (probably Kurdish as well as Turkish) on Alevis" (oh what a coincidence) or just look into the history of any Kurdish city in Turkey's article and check out how many times the Kurdish name get's removed.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, you still are adding nothing but marking that I'm "Turkish" thefore a "vandalizer", whatever I say without even reading my comment you regard it as a personal "POV" simply because you consider me a "Turk" and automatically reject it, and instead you give me examples of what some irrelevant "Turks" are doing on other articles. If you really think I don't have any points I urge you to read the discussion from the beginning. I would make a list to make it easier to you to see but I really can't be arsed by doing so since I don't believe you're willing to read them anymore. Basically, you're nothing but waste of a time and a bigot filled with Turcophobia and prejudice. Nozdref (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this move as well. After briefly mentioning how PKK is supposed to be one of "the various Kurdish insurgent groups" in the first sentence, the rest of the article exclusively deals with the armed conflict between TAF and PKK, with the word, "PKK" being mentioned 199 times and in every section of the article. --Mttll (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tak Flag.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tak Flag.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tak Flag.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

PKK Claims

Though I do not object to PKK claims of PKK members deaths, the PKK claims of Turkish Army deaths are useless. Turkey is a NATO country that has a very structured military force and a functioning elective government and it is mandatory in Turkey for males to enroll in the army. Therefore there is no sensible point in adding a PKK claim of Turkish Army deaths. There would be a huge controversy if conscripts did not return from the front and Turkey failed to explain the absence of their soldiers. 176.40.29.118 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It wouldn't be neutral of Wikipedia to give equal weight to sources that differ in terms of verifiability. --Mttll (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is not a democracy and knowns no freedom of speach. Particulary in the 1990s during which this conflict took place it was military dictatorship in which the military was able to make whatever claims they liked. The Turkish claims of casualties in this conflict are ofcourse totally unrealistic and not true. There might have been controversy about the military covering up their soldiers deaths if journalists had the freedom to report that. In Turkey however, journalists are imprisoned for critisizing the regime espeically when it comes to Kurdish issues. I agree however that both sides should be represented, laughable as the junta's claim is, it is included. However, deleting Kurdish claims and dismissing them with Turkish propaganda being called unquestionable facts is definetly not the way to go for this article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is the country with the most journalists in prison world wide [7] which proves how the regime cracks down on freedom of speach more than any other regime on earth. Clearly we cannot take claims made by a country like that for granted, that's why we put information from both sides and those who read this article can decide for themselves what claim is right. You want to believe the generals that they achieved a 5-1 kill ratio using a poorly armed conscript army, than you are free to believe it, but don't try censor other information.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What's relevant here is that Turkish Armed Forces is a conventional army by all standards and that each and every single one of its casualties are verifiable with their full names, birth dates & places. --Mttll (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true. None of the Turkish casualties are verifiable nor is there freedom inside Turkey to research such subject. Now if you think Turks are truthfull and Kurds are liars you're entitled to that opinion but keep it out of the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are verifiable as one can see from this webpage of Turkish Ministry of the Interior. If you revert the infobox without bringing a source of similar magnitude and/or a consensus from other editors, I'll consider it edit warring. --Mttll (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That site belongs to the Turkish regime, also, it only shows those who died, not whose deaths were covered up. The difference between what me and you are doing is that I'm not removing your figure, I'm leaving the article neutral, it's you who's removing information you don't like, censoring the article. If there is an edit war, it is one you started and I'd rather not have you hurt this article with such unconstructive edits.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views.

By giving Turkish and PKK claims about Turkish casualties the same weight in the infobox, you are actually breaching neutrality. I suggest you stop edit warring. --Mttll (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that Kurdish sources are more reliable than Turkish ones. You may believe otherwise, because you are a Turk, but that is simply your personal POV. This article is about the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, if you want only Turkish claims and views represented than that is a breach of neutrality.Kermanshahi (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not about you or me, focus on the matter at hand. Turkish casualties are listed with their full names, date of birth and death, place of birth and death and pictures by both military and civilian branches of the Turkish government. Once again, here is a source. And any of the listed names returns news articles in search engines. PKK claims on Turkish casualties, on the other hand, are about 0% verifiable. So treating those two sources on this subject the same way is analogous to giving equal weight to the claim that the world is flat as the claim that the world is round. And that's a breach of neutrality. --Mttll (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to note that other countries are held to similar standards, for instance when it comes to Iran and PJAK but ofcourse Turkey must be held to totally different standards. Always exceptions need to be made for your country, right?Kermanshahi (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at more established articles instead, such as Iraq War or First Chechen War where American and Russian official figures are the sole sources for their respective casualties? --Mttll (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we delete everything coming from Kurds, have this article use only information released by the Turkish military junta? That'll be a great article, totally "reliable" about how the great Turkish martyrs defeated evil "mountain turk" terrorists attempting to "create a minority" and weaken the "glorious great turkish nation" in conspiracy with armenians and whatever else goes on in the minds of people such as Erdo or the generals. Problem is, such article doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you want you can make one for some Turkish government newspaper though, I'm sure they'll appreciate your "contributions" in ways they are not appreciated here. If you have come to make propaganda for a certain regime than this is not the place I'm afraid. Kermanshahi (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have here is I'm being soooo reasonable by trying to represent both sides and you are being so extremely unreasonable by trying to delete everything that contradicts your precious regime. It's so frustrating to deal with someone so unreasonable. See I could also start deleting all Turkish claims from all articles because it's basically just propaganda like you're doing...Kermanshahi (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When both sides aren't equally verifiable, giving them equal representation gives the less verifiable source an unfair advantage and actually breaches the neutrality.
I'm saying this again, let's focus on the matter at hand. The Turkish government provides these things for TAF casualties:
  • Full name
  • Picture
  • Rank
  • Date of birth
  • Place of birth
  • Date of death
And these can be independently verified by average Internet users in search engines.
Now, what does PKK provide? Can it provide a single name for those thousands of allegedly covered up deaths?
I'll refrain from reverting the article for now. But I want a straight answer on the subject, neither irrelevant rants on "evil" regimes nor attempts at negotiation based on ethnic or national origin of Wikipedia editors. --Mttll (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We know there are 17,000 missing from this war. Are they all PKK fighters? Or civilians secretly buried somewhere by JITEM? Many of them are most likely Turkish service men. Third world governments, particularly dictatorships have often made dodgy claims about their casualties, especially in conflicts like this. I'm not saying what the PKK says is 100% true, what I'm saying is that in an article like this which is about a Kurdish-Turkish conflict, you can't just say Turkish claims are true, Kurdish claims are false and should thus be removed from the article and only have Turkish claims. That would make this a POV article.Kermanshahi (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Find a source that says there are TAF service men among those missing 17,000, because I'm not interested in your original research, or rather original speculation. Let me give you a tip though: There is no mystery who those missing are, only how they became missing. And while Turkey might be considered third world by some standards, Turkish Armed Forces is a fully conventional army, a part of NATO and is accountable to the Turkish parliament, legal authorities as well as the families of the conscripted and enlisted service men. So objectively, TAF figures on TAF casualties is never on par with PKK figures in terms of reliability and more importantly, verifiability. --Mttll (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theories have no use in this article. If there are names published by PKK, just give us some references. If not, stop forcing your ideological viewpoint.--Khutuck (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems Kermanshahi, like a stereotypical edit-warrior, stopped discussing here once the article is in the shape he wants. --Mttll (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were done editing this article, but it seems that wasn't true. Can't we have a single moment of peace between your vandalism? Seriously, you can't keep deleting everything you don't like. I'm no edit warrior but I'll prevent people like you from destroying an article. If you want to make propaganda I'm sure Erdogan will pay you good money for it, please just do it somewhere else.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also remember mtttll, you are not "reverting" anything, you are removing sourced information that you do not like, to make the article pro-Turkish. I was the one reverting those attacks on how the article was and should be (neutral).Kermanshahi (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I said I would refrain from edit warring, but continue the discussion here. I give you one day to show how PKK claims on TAF casualties are comparably reliable and/or verifiable as TAF reports on TAF casualties. --Mttll (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: Rense.com seems dead, Journal of Conflict Studies doesn't show the data.--Khutuck (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither sides claims can be verified, so it all comes down to who you trust more, and a dictatorship's claims are usually not trustworthy. Therefore there is a dispute here, and both sides must be represented.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Except TAF reports on TAF casualties are fully verifiable as I showed you many times already. (Source) --Mttll (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The claims of a dicatorial regime are nto considered reliable by any standards, neither are they veryfiable, especially not with 17 thousand missing.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the TAF casualties are independently verifiable. And there is no mystery who those missing people are, only how they died. There are no TAF service men among them. --Mttll (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish-Turkish Conflict to Turkish–PKK Conflict

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The only votes that referenced the article titles policy and showed evidence were in support of the current title. If this comes to RM again, I strongly urge those voting to read that policy and base their votes on that. Of course, other policies (such as WP:NPOV) can also be important when deciding on the title of an article and I notice that, fundamentally, that is what the majority of votes were based on. However, both sides had valid arguments about why their preferred title was more neutral/accurate and, having read through the discussion thoroughly, I'm not seeing that one side can be judged to be more correct than the other, hence the no consensus result. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Kurdish–Turkish conflict → Turkish–PKK conflict – This title is completely false. "Kurdish-Turkish Conflict" should be moved to "Turkish-PKK Conflict". Why? Because Kurdish people of Turkey never support the PKK, which kills and put pressure on innocent Kurdish people in the South-Eastern part of Turkey. And everyone knows that both Turks and Kurds live peacefully in Turkey. Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC). Relisted. --regentspark (comment) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That's your opinion. We can't base the article on that.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And Kurdish-Turkish Conflict is also your opinion. So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Stijena (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gabriel. Name of this article should be changed as Turkey-PKK conflict.--Reality 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Also this template's name should be changed, too.--Reality 17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Gabriel. We should change the name. Can someone open a move request discussion? --Khutuck (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I did. However nobody did anything.--Reality 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So two agree the article name should be changed to one that labels all Kurds as PKK and denies existance of Kurdish people as per Kemalist ideology. But seems no-one else agrees with that and fact is, "Turkey-PKK conflict" is untrue because PKK is not the only group involved, and POV since it is aimed at removing the word Kurd from the article + labels all Kurdish groups as PKK as per Turkish regimes claims which are disputed by Kurdish organisations, and it is a fairly unused name compared to Kurdish-Turkish conflict or Kurdish insurgency + it doesn't meet wikipedia standards if you compare to other insurgency articles The Troubles is not called UK-IRA conflict, Iraq War is not called US-AQAP conflict, War in Somalia (2009–present) is not called "Somalia-alshabaab conflict" War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is not called "US-Taliban conflict" Syrian Civil War is not called "Syria-FSA conflict" Israeli–Palestinian conflict is not called "Israel-Hamas conflict" or "Israel-PLO conflict" First Kurdish–Iraqi War is not called "Iraq-KDP conflict," so really you what you are asking for is for different standards to be applied to your country (Turkey) than to all other countries. You should prioritise being neutral, objective and fair over basically making propaganda for your country or it's regime.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To quote myself:

After briefly mentioning how PKK is supposed to be one of "the various Kurdish insurgent groups" in the first sentence, the rest of the article exclusively deals with the armed conflict between TAF and PKK, with the word, "PKK" being mentioned 199 times and in every section of the article.

So I agree that the article should be renamed Turkey-PKK conflict. --Mttll (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The name is POV, racist, and factually inaccurate, no matter how many times the word is used in the article. The word "Taliban" is mentioned 384 times in this article, yet no-one has proposed to rename it "US-Taliban conflict", it's just that you want to hold Turkey to different standards than other countries.Kermanshahi (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You must have missed the part where "PKK is supposed to be one of "the various Kurdish insurgent groups" in the first sentence, the rest of the article exclusively deals with the armed conflict between TAF and PKK". --Mttll (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In the rest of article other groups are mentioned as well and there are other groups in the infobox. This is a conflict on all levels, there is an insurgency, protests, riots, political movement campaigning for human rights, etc. and the PKK is an important part of that but calling it "Turkey-PKK conflict" would mean we have to make it into two articles, one about the conflict with the PKK and one about conflict with Kurdish gorups in general and that's just unessecary. The only purpose you are trying to serve is deny the existance of Kurds by removing the word, as Turkish regime propaganda claims that Kurds don't exist and that all Kurds that want independence are simply Turks that are members of a certain "terrorist" group. This is racist and not true.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename: I completely support renaming this article as "Turkish-PKK conflict" "Turkey-PKK conflict"; which is the best name that reflects the nature of the conflict. All of the other groups stated in the infobox different names and subdivisions of PKK. Also I'm getting tired of the accusations of Kermanshahi about racism. Please do not allow fanaticism in Wikipedia. --Khutuck (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm a neutral observer here. When I noticed the OP's claim that "And everyone knows that both Turks and Kurds live peacefully in Turkey," I was stunned, because such a factually incorrect generalization really discredits any good reason the OP may have for moving the article. That's patently absurd. The conflict encompasses more than just the PKK. If we're going to write specifically targeting PKK, then should we also specifically target Turkey, to be "Turkish military and government-PKK conflict?" After all, most civilians in Turkey are not fighting against the PKK. Of course, it'd be absurd to do so, and the conflict does involve Turkish civilians, just like Kurdish civilians are also involved in the conflict, not just the PKK. As an editor noted above, we're not going to rename "Israeli-Arab conflict" to "Israel-Hamas conflict," because that would be discarding Hezbollah, Iran, PFLP, DFLP, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda affiliated groups, radical Bedouins in the Sinai, and most Arab governments. That's my opinion anyway. --Activism1234 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd like to give some information about this. The beligerents of the conflict are Turkey, PKK and subgroups of PKK. KCK is the city struvture of PKK, PJAK is the Iranian subdivision, TAK is a more radical spin-off (they more frequently target civilians) of PKK. KDP/N, PŞK, KKP, HİK and PIK are different parties founded by or run by ex-PKK individuals, most of them are headquartered in Qandil (just like PKK), some of them are commanded by Bahoz Erdal and all of them are organicly connected to PKK (you can check their articles). This cannot be compared to Arab-Israeli conflict, where Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are completely seperate entities, run by different people.--Khutuck (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's not just about that. It also delves into wider society. I've seen stories of how Kurdish civilians have been attacked or accused and taken to jail, aren't treated as equally, etc. It affects them as well. --Activism1234 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You are right about the accusations and unjust treatment on some innocent Kurdish civilians. As in every conflict, many civil rights were violated by both parties for the last 30 years. But this should not classify this conflict as an inter-ethnic conflict; as except some cases Kurds were prosecuted for "being connected to PKK", not because of their ethnicity. For an example, USA committed crimes and treated Muslims civilians unequally for baseless terrorism accusations; but this should not lead us to rename "War on Terror" article as "American-Muslim conflict".--Khutuck (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename: I support the renaming of the article. Examples such as "we're not going to rename "Israeli-Arab conflict" to "Israel-Hamas conflict" or "no-one has proposed to rename it "US-Taliban conflict" completely mixes apples and oranges. I don't need to give a history lecture here, you all probably already know, but reason why "Israeli-Arab conflict" title stands as it is because it's a conflict that involves almost all the Arab states, not just Hamas or Lebanon's Hezbollah. We don't call it a "US-Taliban" conflict because US didn't invade Afghanistan because Taliban was in the process of human rights violations, US invaded because Afghanistan was al-Qaide's safe haven and Taliban was unwilling to do anything about that. This conflict was never about "Kurds against Turks" or vice versa. Article can mention why such a conflict started, but its immensely wrong to call this conflict as a fight between two ethnic communities. --Cerian (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename: I suggested it before this discussion started so I believe that this name changed as "Turkey-PKK conflict". It is correct and neutral name. Also, this template's name should be changed as a related to name of article.--Reality 02:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename: I support the renaming of the article. --E4024 (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Admin Comment - as of now, the move request in this section is not advertised at WP:Requested Moves because the nominator did not list it at RM. As such, only those editors that monitor this talk page are aware of the move request and it is unknown whether any admin is monitoring it to close it or take action. If editors want wider community input on this, the nominator should list this discussion at RM. (see instructions here) I see no reason why the current discussion cannot be merged into a properly formatted Request for Move. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The reason they do not want this read by a wider community is becasue last time when the move was requested initially, literally everyone voted in favor of it. Not a single non-Turkish editor has voted in favor of censoring the word Kurd and replacing it with PKK, this time around, and they would like to keep it like that so it looks like majority agrees with them.Kermanshahi (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You are doing a distinction which is based on ethnic origin. It is not an appropriate and probably it is prohibited. If you continue to doing distinction, I will complain to you about this. If you want to defend your ideas, you can do it properly. Thank you.--Reality 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Admin Intervention Requested - Dear Mike, something more important here that requires Admin attention is the insistant "they, they, they" practice by a nervous nationalist finger-pointing the nationalities of some editors and accusing them of bias where there is none. I will write separately on those claims but I kindly request sanctions for that attitude. --E4024 (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Because, turkish soldiers burnt 3000-4000 Kurdish villages and forced millions of Kurds to migrate. If this is not Kurdish-Turkish conflict, why they burnt those villages? By the way, if Kurdish people dont support PKK, why 3 millions of Kurds in Turkey signed that, PKK is their willpower? Turks will always deny that, but this is a reality, If Kurdish people dont support PKK then why thousends of civilian Kurds captured last 2 years?--Gomada (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
4000 villages, millions of supporters of PKK? Is there sources? Of course, there is no reliable source about that because these things aren't true and you can see what you wrote on PKK's website. These things completely PKK's propaganda. We should be aware about what we wrote on Wikipedia's pages because of NPOV.--Reality 18:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What a pity! You dont know about your country? or you still want to deny it? Read Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey. Dont try to decieve people. Even if you dont know or you dont wanna accept, we know who burnt our villages.--Gomada (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - in general u suppport, but prefer the "Turkey-PKK conflict" title version.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Kurdish-Turkish conflict doesn't really make sense. Turkish-PKK is much more accurate as PKK kinda become an umbrella abbreviation of all the Kurdic groups conducting armed guerrilla warfare. The content of the article seems to be exclusively about PKK actions anyways. It could be important for people to realize that the majority of Kurdic people in Turkey still vote for AKP which is the party who have been controlling the fight with PKK. The current name is misleading as a POV push at best. This article is about PKK and it's subgroups. If anyone wants to talk about oppression of Kurdic people in Turkey or their human rights in general they an go to [Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey]. Naming this article as "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" is merely duplicating that name and article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Virtually all the voters above (most of them) are voting based on their background and political theories. There are more active Turkish users than Kurdish users, so voting while ignoring Wikipedia rules is not the solution. However, Wikipedia has its own rules. Per google books citation. Turkish-Kurdish conflict gets 267 hits. [8]. Turkish-PKK conflict gets 4 hits [9]. Similarly, in google scholar [10] gets 108 hits vs 3 hits for "Turkish-PKK" conflict [11]. The reality is the Turkish state is based on Turkish nationalism which provides no room for Kurds. And also the conflict has been there before the creation of PKK. Anyhow, google books and scholars favor such a term and given a total of 350+ hits for this term, it warrants an article under such a name. People need to read WP:TITLE instead of bringing emotional political arguments. "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title " Even Turkish authors have used such titles in academic publication [12]--96.255.251.165 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Note that the IP above alerted me to this, but in any case the IP is correct WP:TITLE applies here - I just looked at Google News archives, and it is clear that some variety of Kurdish-Turkish conflict can be found far more often than Turkish-PKK - and Turkey-Kurdish is found a lot more than Kurdish-Turkish, so that's an alternative. To rename this to Turkish-PKK conflict is clearly against WP:TITLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per my words on previous Post move discussion. Seems like my friend Kermanshahi still can't find any proper arguement and repeat same non-sense and paranoia like a parrot which I've already responded to yet he kept ignoring. Nozdref (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Seems like still not a single non-Turkish wikipedian has voted in favor of your re-name. Very persuasive arguments you had. Swayed like 0 people.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as editors' nationality is more important than their words to you we'll never agree anyway. Nozdref (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, pity you can't put your nationality behind you when editing.
Kermanshahi don't forget to add your signature please. My words up there are clear. I tried to refrain from charging you over the flags in your userpage despite all I received from you were barely even response to my words, but useless and ridicilous ad hominems like accusing me of being "Kemalist" and "Erdoğan supporter" (what a discrepancy), or some "Turkish special agent", and I'm not the only one who's victim of your such pitiful personal attacks. Nozdref (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This article clearly is about the ongoing PKK conflict. Some opposers say that there is a Kurdish Problem in Turkey, which I cant refuse, yet this is not the topic which should be in scope of this article, as the PKK clearly is a terrorist organisation and most Turkish Kurds do not identify themselves with them. In fact PKK is a big burden for the kurdish people, kidnapping their children and terrorizing them with all of their acts. DesertEagle (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I oppose the renaming of the article. In essence the rename aims to use semantics to silence the fact that there are Kurds who are not PKK members and support the separation and independence of Kurdistan. 23x2 φ 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The above comment only shows, once again, the anti-Turkish prejudices (nationalist POV) of the concerned user. Having said that, I see the opposition to renaming only as an effort to condone PKK terrorism. FYI: In Turkey we have Turks, Kurds and PKK terrorists. If we had outstanding Kurdish politicians who did not advocate or opposed PKK terrorism you would know their names. They are so few and without apparent popular support, regrettably... --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Ironic how you accuse others of being POV and biased, while you want the article to be about how PKK are evil terrorists and Kurds don't like them. In which planet is that neutral?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment@E4024. i have some (1, 2) videos for you.Its from Newroz of 2012 in Diyarbakir and Istanbul. People shout slogans for PKK. That means, those Kurds are terrorists? Turkish government has forbidden Kurdish Fest and people had clashed with polices/soldiers. But, they all are civilian Kurds who just wanted to celebrate their festival.If Turkey (or Turks) are just againist PKK, why cultural activities are forbidden?--Gomada (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to make up stuff to make counter arguments. Newrouz was not forbidden in Turkey in 2012. Normally, Newrouz was on 21st of March this year and the municipalities gave their mass gathering permissions for 21st. However, BDP wanted to do it on Sunday, 18th of March, and as with any unauthorized mass gathering the gathering on 18th was stopped. So, there is nothing wrong about arguing for the Kurdic cause but I would advise against making stuff up to argue for such a cause. It simply ridiciles your argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed new title seems overly precise, too precise. Too many readers won't know what PKK is. PKK is part of Kurdistan. A conflict with Kurds does not mean that every Kurd is involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


comment if were going to have the current incarnation then we have to mention all aspects of the conflict including the nonviolentt ones and NOT just the PKK's. There clearly are democratic parties in the region that are also in conflict (ban on the party, etc), then you have other groups too. This is POV to have such a title and only mention the activites of PKK. "The Kurdish–Turkish conflict[note] is an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups"
Ive tagged it as POV in the interimLihaas (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
commentNone of this is POV. That sentence is sourced with a source from the Turkish government [13] that states there are 3 Kurdish "terrorist" groups actively fighting against them. Also, the article does not only mention activities of the PKK, this is a lie and you know it is, because if you had read the article you would have seen mention of TAK, PJAK, Hizbullah, PSK, DTP, BDP, HEP. But yes, the PKK is the main insurgent group just like the Taliban is the main insurgent gorup in Afghanistan and thus majority of the article focuses on them. I'd say, please make yourself usefull and add some information about attacks carried out by other groups, instead of trying to censor the article and make it POV.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the percentage of the article that talks about PKK? Could you also point to us why the conflict starts in 1974 on the article? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case the lead is UNDUE. See the first sentence itself. It calls it an "armed conflict." Then move it to Kurdish–Turkish armed conflict and let this deal with other issues in DUE and equal manner.
Also the interwiki links relate to the PKK in name.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Even "Kurdish-Turkish armed conflict" would be meaningless. There were armed conflicts before 1974 as well. The article clearly doesn't care about the Kurdic Turkish armed conflicts in history. Why is Sheikh Said rebellion (1925), Ararat rebellion (1930), and the Dersim Rebellion in the background? Shouldn't all of them have a section of their own in the article? They don't because the article is about PKK attacks. Also, is Turkey in armed conflict with Northern Iraqi Kurdish autonomous region? Not that I know of. "Turkish-Kurdic armed conflict" would be better but "Turkish-PKK conflict" is the right one as that's what the article is about. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said My Lord... --E4024 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And how does that meet WP:TITLE? Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What are you referring to exactly? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I want to note here that I am not against a name change, however I am 100% opposed to a name change if the new name is Turkey-PKK conflict. This is POV since it presents Turkish regime claims that all Kurdish opposition are members of the PKK as undisputed reality, it is racist because it is aimed at censoring the word Kurd and factually inaccurate because there are many other groups active as is shown in sourced information in the first sentence, a source from the Turkish government that proves that at least 3 Kurdish "terrorist" groups are active against them. To call the article Kurdish-Turkish conflict was not my idea, personally I had suggested Kurdish insurgency in Turkey and since we have articles such as Shia insurgency in Yemen (which is not called Yemen-Houthi conflict), Islamic insurgency in the Philippines (which is not called Philipines-MNLF conflict), I think it could be acceptable. I asked you last time, to help come up with a name that would be acceptable for all sides, but Turks refused to do so and demanded that we still keep this POV, racist and inaccurate name. If you have now changed your minds, I am open to any suggestion. Note also that the Sri Lankan Civil War is similar situation to this one (but is not labelled Sri Lanka-LTTE conflict, because that's ridiculous except in this case becasue Turkey must always be held to different sandards than any other country) so we could also call this article Turkish Civil War of Civil War in Turkey, if that's what you prefer. BTW, for those who bring up old conflicts like Sheikh Said and Ararat rebellions, we could call this article Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) such as War in Somalia (2009–present) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) if that solves the problem. Kermanshahi (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
How is the move request censors the use of the Kurd and thus racist? One of the K's in PKK stands for Kurdistan. Would you be ok with Turkey-Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict? The current title is much more inaccurate as the overwhelming majority of the article is about PKK activities. The "Serhildan" and "Kurdish Political Movement" sections are simply there as trivial info because the first sentence of the article points out that the article is about the armed conflict. So, explain to me how it is racist? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is racist because according to those who deny the existence of the Kurdish people, every Kurd who demands equal rights in Turkey is labelled as a Turk that is a member of the PKK, rather than a member of an ethnic group (because Kemalists deny the existance of this ethnic group). Again I would like to note how that first sentence you hate so much is sourced and the source showing 3 Kurdish groups active against the Turkish state is one from your very own beloved government. The Serhildan and political movement are also very important part of this conflict, since protests and riots are also form of resistance such as during the uprisings in Syria Libya and Yemen were armed attacks were carried out along with protests (note: none of these articles are called Syria-FSA conflict, Libya-NTC conflict or Yemen-JMP conflict, but ofcourse, Turkey must be held to different standards than any other country on earth) and also many times cease-fires and rise in violence are related to the political movement. Now the PKK is mentioned a lot more than other groups, because they are the main group, as is sourced in the beginning of the article as well, but as is proven by many other sources, they are not the only group active. Now unless you want to make a seperate article for PKK-related violence and a seperate one for all other Kurdish groups and their attacks (such as the many bombings carried out by TAK), the title you propose will be inaccurate.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see you addressing what I said or answering my questions with coherent arguments but instead I see you attacking me and trying to push an agenda. Please don't use this as a forum. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
@TheDarkLordSeth, if you say, it doesnt mention all conflict between Turks and Kurds since founding of Turkish republic. Then you can expand the article. As you know, since 1920s, Kurds revolt againist Turkish regime. So, dont worry, nobody will tell you why you expand the article. Dont find other reason, if your main purpose is, helping WP and if you have time, then do it.--Gomada (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Doing that would be making the article fit the your desired article name rather than naming the article in accuracy of what the article actually talks about. Simply, it would be a major POV push. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Again it seems people here do not understand WP:title. Kurdish-Turkish (or variant Turkish-Kurdish) conflict is the most popular in google scholar/books and the person who proposed the change is now a banned user by abusing the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules are clear WP:title. " "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title "". So a check against google books/scholars makes it clear what is the most popular title.
  • I would say the conflict stared in WWI. In WWI, up to 700000 Kurds were forcefully removed and half of them perished. See here: [14]. Note again, Wikipedia cares about the most popular name/title.. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could we please be civil with each other. This is not the place to fight in the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, this is the place to decide it's title. If you want to fight in it, do it somewhere other then Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hürriyet newspaper is a nationalistic turkish newspaper

Hürriyet newspaper is a nationalistic turkish newspaper. How can we use it as a reliable source? Here is the simple proof. "Türkiye Türklerindir" is the motto of the newspaper. Its on the first page and it means, Turkey belongs to the Turks. An objective newspaper uses such a motto?--Gomada (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Hürriyet is the largest and most important mainstream newspaper in Turkey. It is much less nationalistic compared to Fox News, for example. Declaring Hürriyet as an unreliable source is absurd, and will casue the article to be very heavily biased. --Khutuck (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
@Kutucuk: Does the user give you an impression like s/he wants an objective article? See his/her talk around. @Gomada: Congratulations, you solved the conspiracy: Hürriyet's decades old motto is the answer to everything. I read Hürriyet everyday; even the most nationalist of his columnists, Mr Akyol defends Kurdish rights. Maybe you read another Hürriyet... --E4024 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly involved in these areas, but Hurriyet is a reliable source. Saying it's not is ridiculous. I've read some of their op-eds, which are from all sides of the political spectrum, and just because they're published in Turkey doesn't mean they're unreliable... They're a mainstream, large, reliable media outlet. --Activism1234 00:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

@Activism1234, sorry but its not so simple as you decide by some op-eds.--Gomada (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your reason is completely unreasonable. Hürriyet is the biggest newspaper in Turkey and its news are generally completely objective and accurate. Its motto doesn't mean Hürriyet isn't objective and I remember that USA dollar has a motto and that motto is In God, we trust but it doesn't mean that USA is non-secular state. Also word of Turk has two means. First, ethnic Turk. Second, Turkish citizens and motto of Hürriyet is referred second.--Reality 18:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I completely missed that - it seemed as though at one point you're saying Hurriyet is good, another you're saying it's bad, then you're saying that a USA slogan about religion doesn't mean USA isn't religious? Can you tidy this up a bit into better wording so it's easier to understand? All I said is that Hurriyet is a reliable source. Agree or disagree? --Activism1234 05:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ofcourse I agree. I just said that history of Hürriyet's motto briefly and again I said that Hürriyet's motto based on citizenship, not ethnicity.--Reality 07:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true that hurriyet controlled by the Turkish government and thus by default a POV source, however it is only normal to use sources from countries involved in a certain conflict, in the article about that conflict. It is important to use such sources because they report what (in this case Turkish) officials, etc. have to say about the conflict and events that took place in the conflict. I also don't believe hurriyet has been used in a POV way in this article.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurriyet is a government controlled newspaper? I wonder how you're gonna make that stick. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In Turkey all media is censored by the government. If a hurriyet columninst were to for instance write a piece supportive of Kurdish independence he would be arrested and imprisoned immedietly as many of his collegues have been since Turkey now holds the world record for locking up journalists. It's clear that hurriyet and all other newspapers that are legal in Turkey, do not have the freedom to report whatever they want and are subjected to government censorship, therefore they are unreliable. That doesn't mean that everything they report is not true, though.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but is there a difference between the Turkish Hurriyet and the English Hurriyet Daily News? Are they two totally different newspapers written by two different people? Because the latter has some op-eds that strongly criticize the Turkish government. --Activism1234 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

They belong to the same network, Dogan Holding to be precise. Similar highly critical articles can be found in the Turkish version as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Now unrelated to this discussion - just curious - is the English Hurriyet a translation of the Turkish one, or it's the same company but a different staff and different articles? --Activism1234 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly. Their writers differ from that of the Turkish version. However, when an exceptionally good and relevant article is written in Turkish Hurriyet the English Hurriyet has it in English as well. The English Hurriyet relies more on internationally relevant topics. You can frequently see them reporting on the same topic but the articles are not really translations. Hurriyet also owns Radikal which is pretty much one of the most liberal news portals. Hürriyet, Hürriyet Daily News, and Radikal have a lot of the most experienced and high quality journalists of Turkey and sometimes all around the world. For example, there is an exclusive Op-Ed piece by Gwynne Dyer today. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Hürriyet and Hürriyet Daily News (former independent English-language daily called "Turkish Daily News") belong to the same business family, Dogan Holding. Certainly each newspaper has its own editorial staff. I know that the former critisises the gov no less than the latter... --E4024 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable info, Lord Seth... --E4024 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If this remains unresolved

If this discussion remains unresolved in the minds of participating editors or the reliability of the source causes content problems in the article, it should be elevated to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for wider community consideration. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It all comes down to this: can a source from a country without press freedom and freedom of speech be reliable?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that is certainly a question the RS notice board can address in a rational way, with results that reflect community wide consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The simple solution is to find an alternative (scholarly) source to Hurriyet, is it not ? Or is Hurriyet the only source for the statement in the article ? HelenOfOz (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Kermanshahi's claim that Hurriyet is government controlled source pretty much invalidated his concern as he bases his concern with this source on such made up points. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont expect to find a solution with Turkish people. Because, the newspaper already supports their ideas. Therefore, they will not accept it. People cant decide ,Hürriyet is not nationalistic only by some of their op-eds as user Activism1234 claimed. When i have time, i will try to write proofs which support the idea that, Hürriyet is really a nationalistic Turkish newspaper.--Gomada (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your own alleged "proofs" doesn't invalidate a mainstream daily widely read and considered reliable internationally... If you really have a problem with it, I'd suggest going to WP:RSN. --Activism1234 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cline, I think we have an equally important issue here; to remind some acronyms to those users who attack others over their nationality or alleged identity... --E4024 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I follow this discussion because I previously closed a Requested Move on this article. I would strongly encourage both sides to focus on content and facts that can be supported by reliable sources. Fighting century long disputes on WP talk pages isn't what this encyclopedia is all about. The question as to the political independence of or political position of Hürriyet is not relevant to the article. What is relevant and what is a legitimate question, no matter who raises it, is: Is Hürriyet a reliable source for content in this article according to WP:RS. As of now, I don't think there is consensus by parties interested in this article that Hürriyet is reliable. The way to resolve the question is to ask the question on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard so that editors uninvolved in these discussions can consider and resolve the question. Please do that. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of material for this debate if you search Google Books with Hizbullah Turkey. HelenOfOz (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: I have to agree that Hurriyet is a Turkish newspaper and it is not neutral. It is true that it is more liberal than other Turkish newspapers but it still has to follow the rules of Turkey , one of them being: "Insulting Turkishness". So I think there are two solutions: 1) removal for controversial claims. 2) claim it as a Turkish newspaper viewpoint. Since this is not a history topic, and the politics is much more messy, there is no harm done if it is claimed as a Turkish newspaper. For example, can Hurriyet discuss controversial topics such as Assyrian or Greek genocide, and then have an author write about its commemorations? Probably not. With all due respect, I do not even take US and Western newspapers to be unbiased, let alone Near Eastern ones (Turkish, Iranian,Syrian, Saudi, Qatari..). --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So, a newspaper is only reliable if it adheres to POV of certain editors?.. You guys should take it to reliable source noticeboard as pointed above. This talk page is not the place to discuss sources with made up claims against them. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous, and even racist. Two ultranationalist users are trying to impose their own POV by blocking the largest newspaper of Turkey, because they feel "it's biased". It's like blocking the use of CNN for 9/11 attacks article. It is just ridiculous POV-pushing. I'm sick and tired of all the racist accusations from Kermanshahi and Gomada because of my nationality. --Khutuck (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Wrong example. US allows freedom of speach, journalists will not be imprisoned for critisizing Obama administration. Turkey which most jouranlists in prison on earth is the country with least freedom of speach on earth. Therefore their sources are unreliable.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

q=%22Turkish-PKK+conflict%22 this bad article on behalf of the wikipedia. one-sided and propaganda.This is organized anti-turkey persons. pkk supporters packed with ideas. publications that are party to open based on a lie.statistical and survey maximum bad data are obtained by willful.. black propaganda used against turkey. maliciously manipulated the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salako1999 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC) The biased Greeks and pkk sympathizers constantly writers of this Article.Salako1999 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Kurdish nationalist in any sense of the definition (leave alone ultra-nationalist), but how is a source that is censored and controlled by the Turkish regime nPOV? That's just simply not true. It's like sources from Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, are also not nPov but it seems Khutuck that as you are such a nationalist Turk you have chosen to blind yourself from these realiaties. Also, the fact that you want to censor the word Kurd from wikipedia would indeed indicate some racism...Kermanshahi (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You are still calling me "a nationalist Turk". --Khutuck (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kermanshahi, you've ignored explanations given for your bold accusations on this page. Can you please file your complaints in the [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You have given me no explenations of how a dictatorship's source is credible. But I have no complaint to file, as I have said before, because hurriyet has not been used in a POV way for this article. And I don't make any bold accusation, just simple fact which is that Turkey has most journalists in prison on earth, which proves those journalists at hurriyet are not free to write what they want. Kermanshahi (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite the source that claims Turkey is a dictatorship?--Khutuck (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I have given explanation for that. If you're gonna keep on accusing sources on such false grounds and continue to try argue your agenda do it in the appropriate section. This talk page is not a forum thread. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

this bad article on behalf of the wikipedia. one-sided and pkk propaganda.This is organized anti-turkey persons. The biased Greeks and pkk sympathizers constantly writers of this Article.88.244.71.189 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdish–Turkish_conflict/Archive_2&oldid=1136263911"