Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Typically we do not list all the countries which are "rumored" to have connections with the conflict as it violates WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. See Syrian civil war infobox as example - all "alleged" parties are removed.GreyShark (dibra) 19:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: Can you clearly describe how it is "WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL" when it is supported by multiple scholarly sources? That consensus belongs to its own article and is no global. There are counter-examples, like Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) and Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Is there a widely-accepted consensus somewhere or you are just generalizing an article's consensus? Pahlevun (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you say "alleged" then it is not valid for usage in infobox. Very simple. I remove all "alleged" parties in all conflicts, this being no exception.GreyShark (dibra) 13:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: You said they are WP:FRINGE and now it seems you are changing your word. Well, I never saw anywhere that "alleged" parties should be removed. Is there any consensus in Wikipedia that I'm not aware of? We can remove "alleged" if you want, because reliable sources cited present the Israeli support as a fact. And they never denied it as Americans. Israel may be using strategic ambiguity on the matter, just like its possession of nuclear weapons. Pahlevun (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply speculating. It has been a problem on many war articles that multiple unrelated parties were added to infobox on speculative grounds, but in articles such as Syrian civil war a major editorial consensus was established that adding parties should be only with verifiable, reliable sources and only in case such involvement is notable. It is easy for some to assume Israelis and Americans are all-powerful and involved in every conflict in Iran, the Middle East and the world. If it was the case, they could be easily defeated for over-stretching their resources.GreyShark (dibra) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable and verifiable sources to support Israeli and/or American involvement at this point. You are welcome to discuss any source you like in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was you claiming of "very low quality sources". So you are the one who should explain why the sources are not reliable, because they already are regarding Wikipedia:Reliability. I assume we need other opinions inolved here. Pahlevun (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For instance Seymour Hersh is not a reliable source for foreign involvement - this is his personal opinion and nothing more.GreyShark (dibra) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and renowned expert on security, and has his own sources. The content is directly attributed to him and considering that the story is published by a reliable source (The New Yorker), there is no problem with the source. Pahlevun (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Pahlevun, it seems you are cherry picking sources on US and Israel's alleged involvement. The currently presented sources are very weak and similarly i can find plenty of other countries allegedly involved in PJAK's rebellion. Journalist speculations in tabloids are not sufficient. Iranian allegations are surely to be presented in the article, but of course against on all parties - US, Israel, Saudis and UK.GreyShark (dibra) 13:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can surely make a whole section on Saudi alleged support by cherry picking: [1], [2], [3], [4].GreyShark (dibra) 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is not even a single unreliable source on US and Israeli support on the article. I expect you to name the "very weak" sources and "journalist speculations in tabloids" you claim. Plus, I will welcome it if you add content on involvement of any other state/international player with proper sourcing. Pahlevun (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All 4 parties (US, Saudi Arabia, UK and Israel) are speculative.GreyShark (dibra) 20:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the source on Israeli support to Kurds as part of "periphery policy" clearly refers to Israeli support to Iraqi Kurds during the Kurdish-Iraqi conflict in the 1960s. Certainly doesn't belong here, as being misleading to believe this is referring to Iranian Kurds today.GreyShark (dibra) 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not:

—Pahlevun (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is the relevance of this quote, though anyway you should be aware that Wikileaks is generally NOT considered reliable source per Wikipedia standards - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Wikileaks.GreyShark (dibra) 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks is not being used as a primary source. The document is cited by secondary sources. Pahlevun (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source is saying that Wikileaks report is about "alleged statements... calling for the support of of Kurdish opposition groups". It doesn't say that Israel supports them. The periphery strategy is referring to Kurds in Iraq, so i'm removing this.GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recincluded the dubious statement about periphery strategy per WP:GF. How come it refers to Iranian Kurds??GreyShark (dibra) 07:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: You are constantly reverting my edits without further discussion, leading to an edit war. I will revert back, and I expect a reasonable discussion from you for any change.

1. So far, you have deleted two sources, an interview with Turkish Ambassador in Iran[1] and Phyllis Bennis' book.[2] This is clearly removal of sourced material and if you are doing it deliberatly without being clear as to why you think the information should be removed, it is WP:Vandalism. I restore the sources.

  1. ^ "Envoy: Israel Supporting PJAK, PKK through Southern Cyprus". Fars News Agency. 1 May 2012. 9102110142. Retrieved 27 September 2012.
  2. ^ Phyllis Bennis (2009). Ending the Iraq War: A Primer. Olive Branch Press. p. 168. ISBN 1566567173. PJAK is made up of Iranian Kurds whose members attack Iran rather than Turkey, but who are also based in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Israel supports PJAK's anti-Iran mobilization. The complication is that the US supports PJAK attacks in Iran, even while it condemns identical PKK attacks on Turkey.

2. This is funny that you put independet sources in a section called "Iranian allegations". Content of the section is published by reliable sources and is written by people without any connection to Iran:

I name the section "Israeli involvement", if you have any other suggestions for the section, raise it here before any change. The same goes for the section "Iranian and Turkish authorities allegations".
3. The periphery strategy source, quoted above, is titled "The Factors Behind Rebellion in Iranian Kurdistan" and is clearly talking about Iranian Kurds. That is an explanaition on why Israel should by interested in having relations with Kurds in Iran.
4. Do not tag Seymour Hersh's article a "disputed statement" again without any discussion. —Pahlevun (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. You are violating WP:BRD. If you want to change a long-standing section title or add disputed material, please get consensus on the talk page. Since only you are promoting this idea, this is not a consensus. I don't mind to discuss sources, but please do not add and change significant sections of the article.GreyShark (dibra) 09:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are omitting to answer. I'll deal with you later. Pahlevun (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but mind WP:BRD - if you want to change long standing version, first get consensus. Stable version is the preferred version. Tagging "disputed statement" or any other tagging in line with talk page discussion is the exact policy of wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 12:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: Do not remove sources such as Le Figaro and Foreign Policy In Focus again or I will be forced to report you. If you have any concerns about the sources that are reliable here in Wikipedia, go to WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are misuquoting the sources, but more importantly you have a very specific POV agenda to list certain countries as involved in all conflicts in the world (US, Israel), based on misquoting and synthesis of quoestionable sources. Anyway, follow WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 06:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have no Idea how you really can justify your edit war. You first claimed that I violated WP:BRD, WP:V and WP:RS and now you changed your word to WP:BRD + WP:OR + WP:SYNTH. :) Claiming "You are misuquoting the sources" is not enough to remove all the content, you must clarify you claim here case by case. And you are ommitting to answer what I asked above. This is not how Wikipedia works, Greyshark. Pahlevun (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MY friend Pahlevun, as you have seen i'm not reverting all your edits, but rather only massive edits which change the scope of the article and subtitles. I don't mind to try and resolve this issue here, but i'm asking you to follow WP:BRD and discuss such massive changes one by one. Would you like to start with one issue or one source concerning notability and reliability of presented claims?GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to quote WP:BRD, which you claim to follow, but actually do not: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring; instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones". You have done it several times, according to the page history. Pahlevun (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to start with your claim that Israeli periphery policy refers to Iranian Kurds. We haven't finalized the discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to discuss anything I have added to the article, including this one. I have quoted the reference above and it clearly about Kurds in Iran. It's talking about Mossad's support for opposition groups in Iran (note "against Tehran"). After citing the periphery strategy, it is continued about another country. ("Israel is also known to maintain business ties to Kurds in Iraq"). Pahlevun (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Zambelis source about periphery strategy is not saying anything at all about Israeli policy. It is only citing a Jerusalem Post article, which might be speaking about such issue in "alleged" terms. In any case, Zambelis source is thus completely irrelevant to the topic of this article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The title is "The Factors Behind Rebellion in Iranian Kurdistan" and it is damn relevant. And for your information, it is not "only citing a Jerusalem Post article", it is a footnote by the author. The Jerusalem Post article referred ([5]) clearly does not include the statement and is only a witness for the author's argument. Pahlevun (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you continue edit-warring disregarding the talk page. Bad faith.GreyShark (dibra) 21:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never neglected talkpage, you stopped answering me. Stop projection, make arguments here, if you have any. Pahlevun (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot first insert a new version of the page and then ask for arguments against it. This is not how WP:BRD works. I've tried to engage in dialogue with you, but it seems you edit-war while discussing with complete disregard to the content of the discussion. This is violating multiple Wikipedia policies and is a step to nowhere.GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can do that, adding reliably sourced content is an improvement and bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. If you believe my edits are not an improvement, then you should clarify it here, but you just revert me without proper discussion here. Proper discussion means reasoning whe "everything you remove" should not be added the article, instead of baseless generalized accusations of violationg WP:blah blah. You have not answered my 24 November talk yet, and you blame me for not discussing! Pahlevun (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have added are of low quality - none are academic and none are professional. The sources say essentially that there are possible links between Kurdish-Iranian insurgents and Israeli intelligence, but allegations are what they are - Wikileaks document speculations and not facts. The text in JPost says "“Instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities. This, Dagan said, presents unique opportunities, and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in their lifetimes,” the cable read. According to the cable, Dagan referred to supporting student democracy movements, and ethnic groups such as the Azeris, Kurds and Baluchs, who oppose the ruling regime." - this is highly ambigous and doesn't refer in any direct way to PJAK.GreyShark (dibra) 07:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your original research, but note that Wikipedia does not value it over reliable sources. The sentnce is a quote from Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences source. Next "low quality" case? Pahlevun (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great-Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences sounds reliable to me, but it doesn't say PJAK in any way and it specifies Israeli intension to support student democracy movements and ethnic Kurdish opposition but clearly intention is not actual support and again - doesn't say "PJAK".GreyShark (dibra) 13:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blink and once again read the source, which does name PJAK:

Thanks to Wikileaks, it also now documented fact that Israel has long since attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued terror war against Iran for the purposes of destabilization of the government.

I'm still waiting for the next "low quality" source. Pahlevun (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End of the conflict[edit]

According to Iranian official announcement, cited by Financial Times, the parties involved in latest 2016 West Iran clashes are PJAK and PDKI. This means that the PJAK insurgency phase (2004-15) is over in my opinion, transforming into a wider rebellion in 2016, also involving PDKI and PAK. WDYT?GreyShark (dibra) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are not important here in Wikipedia, give a reliable source. Pahlevun (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Financial Times are a reliable source.GreyShark (dibra) 09:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iran–PJAK conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the flags.[edit]

Please I am begging you, stop removing the flags because I see it as hideous and boring without them. Qhairun (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think there is no need to follow the so called Manual of Style, this is so unnecessary. Qhairun (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are Wikipedia's official rules. If you do not want to follow them, you should not edit here. Applodion (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran–PJAK_conflict&oldid=1207736448"