Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attacks attributed to the PKK


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List of attacks attributed to the PKK

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork. Although well referenced, this recently created list duplicates material already covered in more than sufficient detail in numerous other articles associated with the Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict, such as Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict. Duplicating casualty claims in separate articles (eg "casualties attributed to the PKK", "casualties attributed to the Turkish military", etc.) is POV-pushing by definition. Furthermore, such lists are inevitably original research as they are essentially collections of newspaper articles collated by individual editors, often articles by local news agencies simply recording military/terrorist press-releases/announcements, which when added as references give the list the impression that it is somehow definitive even though the list is inevitably devoid of independent, third-part verification and/or analysis. Note that both sides make claims repeatedly about casualty figures although such claims are often, as one might expect, subject to interpretation, claim and counter-claim. In the past similar articles nominated for AFD, although ultimately deleted, have attracted comments along the lines that renaming might resolve POV issues. None of these arguments resolve the fork problem as renaming does nothing to stem the flow of random newspaper references by, and according to, the whim and personal perspective of individual editors. Debate  木  14:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

note for administrators. the title has since been changed -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I see nothing much wrong with this article, it is well sourced so it is not original research (news reports are usually acceptable sources) and comparable to Chronology of Provisional IRA actions,List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks,List of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine suicide attacks or List of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks in fact this article is considerably better sourced than all of those. Wikipedia lists are never claimed to be definitive. However the casualties section does not belong on a list article. Lists should contain entries according to the criteria and nothing more. I see no issues here with regards to WP:NPOV policy which itself is not a reason for deletion. -- neon white talk 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a significant difference between this and the other lists mentioned above. All the other lists detail no more than half a dozen or so incidents a year, most of which are widely reported (with analysis) in the international press. On the other hand this article details an intense military conflict with huge daily disparities between reported casualty figures, with little or no critical coverage by the international press or international human rights organizations. Often the Turkish military reports nice round numbers like 150/300 deaths while the PKK claims half a dozen, or none, all of which are essentially unverifiable claims in an ongoing conflict with tens of thousands of casualties. Lines like "The Turkish air force conducted a raid on a PKK base in the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq killing 150 militants" are simply ludicrous. How the Turkish military or anyone else could know with any certainty a) how many people were killed, based presumably on reports from the pilots dropping the bombs, and b) how many of these casualties were actually "militants" is anyone's guess. In terms of reliable sourcing, media regurgitation of the contents of military press releases is very different from reports by independent news agencies independently verifying the situation on the ground. I am surprised at the claim that "Wikipedia lists are never claimed to be definitive", which is kind of like saying "Wikipedia lists are never claimed to be accurate". In fact, accuracy is a core pillar of any credible encyclopedia and the fact that this list can never achieve it should be setting off immediate alarm bells. Debate   木  23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources includes in the article, Fox news, Reuters, SF chronicle, Associated Press etc. suggest that it is well coverd by international press. It is the reliability of these sources that make the article verifiable. Unless there is another reliable source that contradicts them then there is no argument here, those are the verifiable facts. We cannot make random speculations about where the newswire gets it's info from because we disagree with the facts. The principle that wikipedia presents verifiable facts not the truth is a core part of WP:V policy, in fact it's the first sentence. The principle that most lists are never considered complete or definitive is also policy and common sense. There is always some info that is not yet included. -- neon white talk 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind linking to the policy that lists are never considered complete or definitive? Thanks. Debate   木  21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in LISTS but genereally it's common sense. It's impossible, with the majority of lists, to definitivly state that there could be no more entries, that the list is final. Even things that would seem obvious, for instance say a list of planets in the solar system, has changed. -- neon white talk 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can find in LISTS is a single reference to Dynamic lists, a list sub-type, which applies to topics that might "change as the subjects they cover change", such as a new historical event, newly notable alumni, etc. In fact, LISTS explicitly states that lists are subject to the same rigorous policies as any other article. In the case of this article, the problem is that implicit in its construction is the assumption that the figures reported are somehow definitive and complete, at least to-date. In fact, a more accurate title would be "Timeline of recent media coverage of the Turkish/PKK conflict as collated selectively by Wikipedia editors". For example, we are lead to believe by the presence of events attributed to 4 May and 6 May that nothing happened on 5 May. If we were to properly source figures such as these from reliable tertiary sources, such as a history textbook, US State Department report, or similar, we could assume that some fact checking of these gaps has gone on. When each bullet is separately referenced to individual media articles, however, no such claim about the facts can be made, misleading the reader and almost inevitably violating WP:Undue as well. Furthermore, such lists inevitably also violate WP:synthesis when the figures from the lists are added up, such as the recently added "Table of casualties by year since the colapse (sic) of the long-term cease-fire in 2004". Such a table implies that it is a definitive list of casualties even though it in fact simply documents the research of Wikipedia editors, based on the sources they have found. Finally, most references do, in fact, attribute the figures to announcements by one side or other but when translated into the body of a summary list that critical information is almost inevitably stripped out. Debate   木  01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A list concerning ongoing events would be considered dynamic. Considering you've seen LISTS you should be familar with the section 'list naming'. This ridiculous throwing around of and misinterpreation of policies, most of which havent the slighest bit to do with this article is bordering on Wikilawyering. The list is based on reliable sources. Nothing on wikipedia implies definitiveness. Any numbers can be revised at any time. -- neon white talk 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be curious to see if we get a second opinion on this, since other than the article creators there's only you and I debating the point at the moment. In my experience these discussions ultimately end up as a debate between those who think any reference is a good reference, and those such as myself who believe that referencing something alone is not enough as there are a great many ways that referencing can be misused. It's a shame that more editors don't contribute, but it does suggest to me that the discussion is more complex than you imply since there's never any shortage of editors willing to weigh in on AFD debates for notability, vandalism, spam, etc. and therefore quite a few editors lurking on the sidelines. Unfortunately, for better or worse, arguments concerning the misuse of references require a slightly more complex case to be made than simply looking for the presence or absence of footnotes. Debate   木  10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like these arguments. However I changed the article name and now we can include all the claims to have NPOV. It should be better than articles like Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008).-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per neon white's arguments. Also, I started a discussion for renaming. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I am not a registered user so I don't know how much my vote will be worth but I have helped user TheFEARgod, who created the article, to expand it. In my opinion, like user Neon white said, this article is well sourced so it is not original research. There are other articles like the List of insurgents killed in Iraq, List of Iraqi security forces killed and List of Afghan security forces killed (which are based on news articles, and at least for one of them there were up to three nominations for deletion on the same bases you have given and all three were rejected by a large majority of users). News articles, as far as I know, have been regarded on Wikipedia to be verifiable. As far as the casualties section, it is not duplicating those from Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict, because the table of casualtise in the Effects article sums up the number of dead from 1984 up to the end of May 2001. This article that you have nominated for deletion only sums up the numbers of dead since the break down of the cease-fire in mid-2004 up to today. So in essence it is not duplicating anything. Actualy the Effects article should use this article as a source so to be updated. Also I see no POV-pushing here if we are just trying to sum up the human cost of the conflict. The only thing that may have to be done is to change the name from List of attacks attributed to the PKK to Timeline of the Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict like user TheFEARgod suggested on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.235.26 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of which presents a compelling argument for updating the Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict article instead of starting an entirely new one. Debate   木  23:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In that case that specific article (Effects) would become just to long because there have been hundreds of attacks in the past four years so the best solution is to make an article that lists attacks during those four years since the collapse of the cease-fire and link Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict to that article and update accordingly. I think that is the best solution.89.216.235.26 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.