Talk:October 2007 clashes in Hakkâri

message: Please discuss future changes, the previous edit history was lost! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit history is there. -- Cat chi? 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 October incidents has nothing to do with this, that is a non-notable incident with little to no international reaction unlike this one which is on the headlines of any newspaper I have seen. It isn't the first time such a thing happened. PKK is not some sort of an army that can "retaliate". They carry out isolated attacks. The "obvious" claim you make is your own original research. -- Cat chi? 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to remove it. Part of ongoing struggle and cross-border attacks --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of this article is not such a thing. You are welcome to create a seperate article. -- Cat chi? 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm open for having two articles: Yuksekova incident and the Daglica one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: so, your claim "too precise name" doesn't fit. Look at other milhist articles e.g. Bokhundjara incident or Zar'it-Shtula incident, please do compromise don't rv everything --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That incident is not notable. We do not have articles on every incident. -- Cat chi? 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Which? I saw both on BBC, Aljazeera front pages--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then create a seperate article. You can further disambiguate by date (21 October 2007). Right now I am a bit busy expanding material on the 21 October attacks. -- Cat chi? 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By having two articles, we surely won't need an article about the 10 Oct. shelling. Now, I cannot force you to accept a name, but I'm naming the first as October 7, 2007 Yüksekova incident  --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think we need a time out. This is being confusing. Here are the different elements of the topic. How many do you disagree with and why. Things that may be obvious to you is not automatically clear to me so I may need an explanation.
The title of the article is supposed to represent the content of the article.
# Full date, because there had been multiple attacks in the same moth full date should be in the title. Date can be a disambiguation like this: Foo (21 October 2007). Date can actually be dropped completely.
# No one is disputing that this was an attack. Calling it as such is not factually incorrect. Even the PKK considers it an attack I believe making it unanimous. PKK's presence there wasn't a coincidence. Calling it anything but an attack or perhaps a "raid" is problematic as it will not accurately represent the content of the article.
# Both employees of the Turkish government (soldiers) and citizens of Turkey (soldiers as well as civilians) were targeted. The attack had taken place on Turkish soil. Therefore everything indicates that the attack was aimed against Turkey. Because the attack did not rake place on a spesific location like a city (London bombings) or a ship (USS Cole bombing), we can't accurately use that as a description. The name of the province or its sub-province division is to broad of a location are not accurately descriptive of the location of the attacks as they are too broad. The attack had generated a country wide response and the counter attack wasn't restricted to Turkey. I suppose the name of the village may be used, aka something like "attack near Dağlıca".
# Attack was indeed by the PKK. I dislike putting abbreviations into the page title immensely unless they are absolutely necessary. Generally standing most such attacks do not have the attacker in the title. Consider the 2005 London bombings and USS Cole bombing (United States Ship Cole bombing) articles.
#Not that this is completely title related... Most news outlets refer to the incident as a "terrorist attack". As per "words to avoid", it is out of the question to put that (terrorist) in the title. However the use of the current infobox is problematic as it should only be used for conflicts between conventional long term campaigns which for the most part take place between two conventional armed forces. The original  (which really is a redirect to ) would be better. Consider the USS Cole bombing. # Title should accurately represent what kind of an attack this is. This was indeed a cross-border attack. No one is disputing this.
My suggestion of a compromise would be Cross-border raid near Dağlıca or Cross-border attack near Dağlıca.
Should there be a full scale invasion to Iraq by Turkey, this article can be completely incorporated into it as "background" info so keep that in mind. The article is currently notable as stand alone attack unless it is incorporated into a more general incident such as a more general invasion or incursion.
-- Cat chi? 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Is it necessary to list all the different nations that call PKK terrorists in the lead?  Shouldn't the lead say who the PKK is and what they want as the first priority, and let the body say what people say about them? Squee23 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, I think not. That info is already in PKK's article. The info is true, but can cause POV forking..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV forking? I am not saying they are terrorists, I am saying the US and others call them as "terrorist". It is a verifiable and reliable info, the majority opinion. It helps identify that 'Kurdistan Workers Party' isn't some random peaceful political party. -- Cat chi? 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I am having difficulty just following the developments let alone write about it. We may consider expanding the article to include the previous attack (something I originally opposed). How do you think this should be covered? We could also write about the individual attacks as we are doing now. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need a new name (like 2007 Hakkari battles?) and decide by consensus --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't battles though. I do want to avoid terms that are used pretty much by conventional warfare. All separate incidents are unrelated for the most part. For example today a group of PKK militants were ambushed while they were preparing for an ambush in Semdinli area. 30 of them had been killed. This PKK cell is completely independent and seperate from the 21 October group. This is how asymmetric warfare is conducted. Not through a confrontation by two sides as you would see in a battle. I am not completely certain what would be the best way to refer to the article(s). Perhaps October 2007 attacks in Hakkari... but then again this will likely to continue to November and some of the counter-attack by Turkey isn't even in Turkey. Perhaps focusing on the incident rather than location would be better. 2007 cross-border attacks or 2007 cross-border attacks on Turkey-Iraq border. I dono what the proper name would be. -- Cat chi? 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of conflict is rather unique. -- Cat chi? 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess Fall 2007 Hakkari skirmishes might be a better header, but as PKK groups consist of small numbers while Turkish army in the operations is over a hundred thousand this may not be good enough. Khutuck 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PKK preforms hit and run tactics with few people. They fight until helicopters arrive or something. On the other hand Turkey preforms her attacks until the PKK militants escape. It isn't much of a skirmish when one side is running away and the others are following. -- Cat chi? 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: http://www.turkses.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=35 Is this relevant to this article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article will stay as "Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari", this link is relevant. Khutuck 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the first major attack by the PKK this month aimed completely at civilians. I'd prefer other sources to compliment. Not that I am disputing the material there, but you know what I mean. -- Cat chi? 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minibus attack 

message: ..were reported these days (with PKK deaths reported). As I failed to follow them can someone update the article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guns are still hot. I want to add it when reports finalize. -- Cat chi? 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On October 28 8,000 Turkish troops with air support carried out a major operation in Tunceli Province, killing 20 Kurdish guerrillas according to the army. Well that wasn't in Hakkari. Should we now change to Fall 2007 clashes in eastern Turkey?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: or Fall 2007 Turkey-PKK clashes --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may include Northern Iraq or western Turkey. A bomb was placed in Kocaeli area during an anti-PKK rally probably by the PKK. Few people were wounded. I really am unsure. Maybe a Fall 2007 clashes in Turkey but that doesn't feel right. After all these incidents are all isolated here and there. -- Cat chi? 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second Fall 2007 Turkey-PKK clashes, unless in some cases they are fighting non-PKK guerillas. Joshdboz 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an inter government war. The fighting merely happens to take place in Turkey. Other such articles, even full scale wars such as the Battle of Waterloo, are titled over location not combatants. -- Cat chi? 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New clashes 

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

message: Since the 7 October 2007 ambush took place in Şırnak province, it is a bit misleading for this page to be titled "October 2007 clashes in Hakkari". Any thoughts on a more general title, such as October 2007 clashes in southeast Turkey or October 2007 clashes in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia Regions (see Regions of Turkey)? –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility is to focus the article on the 21 October attack and present information about the 7 October ambush in a "Background" section. In fact, if (as seems to be the case) PKK and Turkish forces clashed throughout October and the following and preceding months, then it may be a good idea for this article to focus just on the 21 October attack. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: According to existing source, 
They then withdrew under fire into northern Iraq, taking with them eight Turkish soldiers as prisoners. On October 23, the PKK released photographs of the soldiers in captivity. 
We cannot find the word "kidnapping" in this source. Takabeg (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, reverted. My bad, I was reading another source. Khutuck (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "Kidnap" was used in this source. AP -> GMA NEWS. Takabeg (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The Economist uses "kidnapped". This source uses "13 Turkish soldiers dead and eight more kidnapped...". Bianet also uses "kidnapped" here and here. Crisiswatch uses "abducted". Gotta sleep, thats all i can find tonight. "Kidnapped" seems more neutral, I should check BBC and CNN, if they use "kidnapped" too, we should do the same. --Khutuck (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: We should check if neutral sources refer them as prisoners or hostages. If BBC, CNN etc. refers them as "kidnapped / hostages", we can use "kidnapped and held hostage". Otherwise your wording is good to use, it is quite neutral. I honestly do not remember if PKK demanded anything for the return of Turkish soldiers, if they demanded something that would be a hostage case. Sources, gotta check ém all! Khutuck (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN says "abducted soldiers" and here and here. BBC says "The release of eight soldiers after two weeks held hostage by the PKK" here, and consistenylt uses "hostage" throughout the article. --Khutuck (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 prisoner

message: 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)
thread_title: File:Tak Flag.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on October 2007 clashes in Hakkâri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207215002/http://www.24heures.ch/pages/home/24_heures/l_actu/monde/monde_detail/(contenu)/149302/ to http://www.24heures.ch/pages/home/24_heures/l_actu/monde/monde_detail/(contenu)/149302
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on October 2007 clashes in Hakkâri. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023165841/http://www.tsk.mil.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_Basin_Aciklamalari/2007/BA_25.html to http://www.tsk.mil.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_Basin_Aciklamalari/2007/BA_25.html
*Added  tag to http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-10-28T151324Z_01_L13546086_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-TURKEY-IRAQ-COL.XML
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080229072722/http://news.trend.az/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=1052848&lang=EN to http://news.trend.az/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=1052848&lang=EN
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504013640/http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=E&publication_id=385535&docnumber=148 to http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=E&publication_id=385535&docnumber=148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519103724/http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=F&publication_id=385535&docnumber=148 to http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=F&publication_id=385535&docnumber=148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725104457/https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/bulletin.asp?liste=20071022.html to https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/bulletin.asp?liste=20071022.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022160325/http://dn.sapo.pt/2007/10/22/internacional/ancara_prepara_resposta_pkk.html to http://dn.sapo.pt/2007/10/22/internacional/ancara_prepara_resposta_pkk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025083902/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13590.asp to http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13590.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202062333/http://www.eu2007.pt/UE/vEN/Noticias_Documentos/Declaracoes_PESC/20071022PESCPKK.htm to http://www.eu2007.pt/UE/vEN/Noticias_Documentos/Declaracoes_PESC/20071022PESCPKK.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified