Talk:Death of Eren Bülbül

Revert discussion
Rationale for reverting:


 * 1) - The argument of whether the PKK is a terrorist organisation does not need to be made here; it is dealt with at Kurdistan Workers' Party.

- In fact, in no where in the article such a sentence exists "PKK is a terrorist organisation", but as there are countries who claims it is not and the Kurdistan Workers Party evokes as if it's a normal political party acting in legal arena, there would not be any inconsistency in giving extra informations about it between commas, as it is always done in academic articles to inform third parties.


 * 1) - The reference given is not particularly reputable (its Wikipedia article notes that it uses content from The Daily Mail and The Sun) and does not publish content critical of the Turkish government, so a better source would likely be needed. If a better source can be found, I would suggest putting this under a separate heading of == Life == . I would probably not include the last sentence, but I am open to other editor's suggestions.

- "...does not publish content critical of the Turkish government" is a quite irrevelant arguement. Firstly, the criteria to be used as a source can not be "critical against someone or in favor of...". Secondly, using "reputable" term as a characterization for any sources can not even be attributed to an academic point of view, that would be quite subjective, which is indeed having been done here. Any source can be regarded as trustable or reputable for anybody, that's to say, attacking source will not undermine its reliability, but referring other sources such as bianet, which i would highly claim reputable, might work.


 * 1) - This whole paragraph is not written neutrally; 'terrorists', 'bravely guided' and 'martyrs' just the most obvious points.

- For a 15 year old boy, who was killed by a terrorist organization, designated terorists by E.U. and U.S., helping security forces can indeed be regarded as bravely and does not require reference or neutrality. That exists in the nature of things and in Turkey, martyr is an official term.


 * 1) - Not neutral and the source used is controlled by the Turkish government, so not reliable.

- Ayşe Bülbül's speech does not require any impartial source. If she did not say such a thing, the opponent is invited to prove it.


 * 1) - Unsourced and non-neutral, so would be removed anyway.

As this is the only content added, I felt justified in reverting. BalamirAlpertunga, if you feel this rationale is unfair, please engage with me here rather than making further disruptive edits to the article. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In response to your points above:
 * Because the status of the PKK is a point of contention, the original wording of the article would be more suited to Wikipedia's neutral tone. If readers wish to read further about the PKK, they can see its own article where there is a whole section on the PKK's designation as a terrorist group.
 * You are quite correct that the source does not need to be impartial; I have since read up on Wikipedia policy on the matter. Nonetheless, the fact that the source often uses online content from two papers which are generally considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community (see WP:RSP) - therefore, it would be a good idea to try and find a better source anyway.
 * With all due respect, everything on Wikipedia needs references and neutrality, and even though 'martyr' may be a term used in Turkey, I don't think it is particularly neutral (it seems a very emotionally charged word in this context).
 * Indeed, what she said does not necessarily need an impartial source but it does need an impartial tone. I can't see where in the article referenced she though? You also removed a sourced quote from her from 2017, which by your argument above should be in the article too.


 * To make this thread easier to follow, it would be a good idea to have a look over Wikipedia's talk page guidance. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could revert your edits until we have finished the discussion here. Thank you, Gazamp (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am trying to clean up the article a bit. If you disagree with my edits, please say why here rather than reverting my edits, so that we can work through it. Thanks Gazamp (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)