Talk:2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq

Turkey High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq High‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kurdistan High‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Untitled

Part of this article has been merged from 'Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008)'. The old talk page for that article can be found here.

Causalities

where is PKK claim on causalities? Turkish claim is not the exact truth. there must be PKK's claim on wikipedia. few hours ago this page contained PKK's claim but now it isn't here, somebody removed it. somebody add it again please.

I join you in this matter, this should not be a Turkish Military website, please be neutral in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.25.80 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the official casualties because i originally questioned the number and when I clicked the links for the sources they do not work... So I fixed it with an official count from a neutral source (the source is official and published) So please if someone can find the source where it says Turkey killed 700+ on an official website that is published than it will stand (but I tried) or many articles adding up the total counts which I want explained in the discussion (I would like you to do your work with addition in the discussion to let us know if you did your work correctly. Other than that the number now should stand! (129.21.71.50 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is no need to write pkk claims as casualties. There are already tons of videos and photos showing killed and buried pkk militias during this operation, it's a lot more than ten terrorists. I can post the pictures of dead pkk militias, and their burying ground but I'm not sure if they fit here(gore stuff). Also Turkey can't hide its casualties because Turkish military is responsible to the families of soldiers, they have to explain fate of the soldiers to their families, it's impossible to hide the death of 100 soldiers. Turkey is not North Korea or another military autocracy. PKK is on the other hand, they are not responsible to anyone, they don't have the basic system to reach the families of militias thus they can hide or aggravate the number. Wikipedia should not be the place for PKK propaganda 88.241.228.23 (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open an account and do it yourself. But, people will oppose to it, and you may have to discuss it on the talk page to show that PKK's news sources are not reliable sources. Kavas (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to stop the edit war. DesertEagle (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once again corrected the casualities count, as one can see in the History of this article you will find out that Kermanshahi ist abusing wikipedia. The neutrality of this article is still not assured! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertEagle (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having both sides figures is neutral and balanced, having only unreliable unverifyable Turkish regime claims is POV and propaganda for the Turkish regime, which seems to be just what you are making. And yes, the neutrality of this article is not assured, it's much to pro-Turkish and has to be made more neutral.Kermanshahi (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me, that the numbers the PKK claims are correct? How can you be absolutely certain? The PKK is a terrorist organisation, and you seem to be a supporter - if not even more than that. So yeah, dream on. I don't even care. So pathetic. No comment. And certainly I am no kemalist. DesertEagle (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incursion

- Operation Name : Güneş ?!

How does one know that this is an incursion, not an invasion?

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me "incursion" sounds more limited than "invasion", so if Turkey sent in troops to every corner of Kurdistan this would be an "invasion" but just a limited mission to a select few targets like now would be an "incursion". I'd be happy to hear what you think. Joshdboz (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally an incursion is when you cross into another country's territory accidentally (q.v. runway incursion), or perhaps in order to capture a small band of fugitives, although this is sometimes called an expedition (q.v. Pancho Villa Expedition). Of course, you usually don't need 10,000 troops to do that. Basically if this turns into a military occupation of Northern Iraq, we'll know that this was actually an invasion. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL -- Kendrick7^talk 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. One can descibe this as "incrusion" until it becomes "invasion".Biophys (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to the American incursion into Cambodia during the Vietnam war. North Vietnamese forces and Vietcong had established safe havens inside the borders of supposedly neutral Cambodia, some as far as 20 miles in, according to President Nixon. The point of entering the borders deliberately was not to invade Cambodia, but to eliminate an already recognized enemy that was itself not respecting borders and neutrality. Ironically, this action, which was necessary to the safe withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, was met with hightened student protests, resulting in the shootings at Kent State. So the difference between incursion and invasion in these cases is largely a matter of intent and objective. --75.173.4.172 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal under international law?

Isn't this illegal under international law? It is or not it should be stated clearly in the article. --Leladax (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - wouldn't it depend on whether this is considered self-defense? The UN simply released a statement asking for international borders to be respected. Joshdboz (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey started this because they have the right to defend their borders. PKK militia killed countless civilians (including, but not limited to teachers, guards, doctors, soldiers and children). Before anyone makes an "inappropriate" comment, notice that this is self-defense. Everybody knows that PKK killed thousands of people and destroyed countless villages in the last 20 years. Here are just a few pictures to show you how violent PKK is:

http://diyalogcu.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/pkk-gercegi.jpg

http://www.pkkgercegi.net/seyretfiles/localvideos/pkk/_thumbs/pkkvahseti1.jpg

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5981/pipkkl7de.jpg (See especially this one)

Keep your propaganda away from wikipedia. Anyone can counteract your images with slaughtered Kurds. --Leladax (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, defending your own borders & citizens from terrorists (PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization worldwide) is not illegal in any (not just international) law. --88.231.233.226 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these pictures are only the word "war" written in its native language. I greatly appreciate the value of having someone knowledgeable interested in providing us information, but if you want to be convincing, then please point us at the best information about where, when, how many attacks have taken place in Turkey and how much proof there is that these attacks were caused by the current targets in Iraq. 70.15.114.2 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good with some real info on this. However I seriously doubt it is legal. Iraq is a sovereign country and Turkey is violating her sovereignty. You can't just march in with troops in another country when you feel for it. (SebastianGS (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But all countries should take control of their territory. If Iraq can't clean its lands from the terrorists, and if the terrorists harm Turkey, I think it is right to make an operation for Turkey.--78.180.30.33 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the International Law is not based on what you think is right. --K kc chan (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether military action between states is in accordance to international law is difficult to establish since as far as i know there is no single set of laws to apply or enforce. There are however, objective indications of what the global community considers to be "lawful" or otherwise , one of which is the united nations security council, and the views of its permanent members. Considering that both the UK and US publicly support the incursion, and the case that the Turkish Government may build based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, I would say the incursion is "legal".BigFatPussyCat (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

Turkish troops dresses are prepared to operate under -40 oC degree. Since the current weather is -26 oC, the PKK rebels have no chance to live in Northern Iraq. Also, Turkish F-16 's can operate 24 hours (night and day) by the help of LANTIRN devices. PKK resources give many number related to death toll, but Turkish troops put PKK terorists' corpses next to each other so that PKK resources can easily count the PKK terorists' killed bodies. Turkish Army taught many enemy to counting :) Also, PKK seems to forget counting since in the past Turkish Army put PKK terorists' bodies next to each other in the past operations 88.252.64.238 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Finish PKK terrorists"? Why not "exterminate"? Surely this is unacceptable language for an encyclopedia.JerseyCommie (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of troops

Look at this report: [1]. While Turkey's armed forces are among the largest of the world, the number of troops involved in this operation is disputed. And even if you ignore what the Iraqi officials say, the news reports from Turkey say that there are 3,000 to 10,000 troops involved, not plain 10,000 troops. Contralya (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been corrected. Turkish reports say 3000-10,000 while US/Iraq reports seem to indicate several hundreds. Joshdboz (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incursion or Operation

This move a operation to PKK not incursion to Iraq so we must change name of tis page from 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq to 2008 Turkish operation into northern Iraq.--Absar (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean "not an incursion"? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is concerned about the tone or implications of the term incursion. Perhaps a better title is called for; however, by military terminology and national law it is considered an incursion. --75.173.4.172 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly an incursion, Turkey was not part of the Iraq War. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to argue, I have some questions about the above:

Where can I find the military terminology defined?
WHOSE national law says it is an incursion? (If that was meant to say "international law", where would that be written down?)
How does the point about Turkey not being part of the Iraq War affect whether or not the present "military operations" are an incursion?

Thanks, Puzzled Wanderer57 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the first two, but I think we call some action as operation if it is a part of a battle, and if there is a known goal. Like defeating an enemy army. But Turkish Army has not declared any goals, except to enter Iraq and kill as much as they can...--78.180.41.211 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The countries who invaded Iraq in 2003 now have a UN Mandate to be there with the permission of the current democratically elected government of iraq, the Turks have none of those permissions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is "Turkey", not "Turks".

It's an incursion, a raid if you will, so the name is perfectly legitimate. However, since we know the name of the operation and past articles on incursions use the operation name I see nothing wrong with naming this article after the operation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps removing the name of the kurdish commander as well as the link to PKK. could someone please take care of it, i'm not sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.28.16 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction - specifically U.S.

Matthew Bryza said, "A land operation is a whole new level...What I can say is how we have been doing until is now quite well. I am very pleased my government finally fulfilled our commitment to Turkey to eliminate the terror threat, which is for Turkey the number-one national security concern."

Couple of problems with the above, first "A land operation is a whole new level...What I can say is how we have been doing until is now quite well." Not only makes no sense (read the part after the ...) and also isn't supported by the citation given at the end which only mentions the second half of the quote. Second, it doesn't mention anywahere in the article what the U.S. is doing, if anything, that makes Bryza pleased. What commitment have they fulfilled. It says in the citation that they have provided intelligence but not in this article as such the quote makes no sense.137.222.215.52 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clarify this. All quotes can be found in the ref. Joshdboz (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concealing the fact it's only clearly supported by the US

I had added on the first lines that it's only clearly supported by the US as the sources and the own Controversy section of the article itself indicate. It's funny how in a day some tried to conceal it with a) removing the mention of the US in the beginning replacing it with "international reaction has been largely negative". Then what is most sad is the Controversy section. It was changed to "US has a mixed reaction". It's ridiculous how that is not substantiated. The very lines following indeed prove it is clearly supported by the US. --Leladax (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Wikipedia is not a Propaganda tool of the US or so it's supposed to be.

International Response

Stating that international response has been negative doesn't make any sense. For that proposition to be true, we should have major states condeming the operations. Nobody did that. I am deleting that line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.38.163 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stating that international response has been negative doesn't make any sense." Are you incapable of reading the sources? As I said above, the most accurate and honest thing to do that wouldn't constitute wikipedia yet again a propaganda tool for the US, to just say it's only clearly supported by the US. --Leladax (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been negative in the sense of condemnation. Even the UN just asked for "utmost restraint" and respect for international borders. I've tried to clarify the sentence in the lead. Joshdboz (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is diplomacy talk. They are not going to swear like kids. It is obviously negative. --Leladax (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are the who is not able to understand what you're reading. What makes you think the reaction is negative? They are only urging Turkey to be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.38.163 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Leladax, but we cannot interpret these statements on our own. If you come across a news report describing world reaction as such, please add it. Looking at this with face value, most countries are simply saying "leave ASAP", the US and EU also recognized Turkey's right to defense, and Russia added that foreign territory should not be allowed to be used for terrorist activities. Simply saying that "the international response has been negative" would be inaccurate at this point. Joshdboz (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News

There is a rule Wikipedia is not a news service, and it looks to me that this article is likely a news service, just like 2002 invasion of Spain and 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein. JacquesNguyen (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, no. This is an actual military operation, not some accidental trip into another country's territory. It's no different from the other articles on such military operations, some of much more limited scope like airstrikes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

I believe the heading should be just Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, the year is not necessary. JacquesNguyen (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many Turkish incursions into northern Iraq over the past decades. If this one eventually acquires a specific name that is used to refer to it, then we can change the title to that. As of now, the current name is necessary to specify what exactly we're talking about. Joshdboz (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me, please! I had check list of invasions, and see that there is only 1 Turkish incursion into Iraq (2008) since Turkey was formed in 1923. While you said there are many, I think you refer to Ottoman Empire, if true, that doesn't count. Because although Ottoman Empire exist in present-day Turkey and ruled by the Turkish, but Turkey did not exist until 1923. JacquesNguyen (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. There have been five operations before "sun".--78.180.30.33 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious that PKK is not announcing its losses

Therefore I propose that we delete PKK claims, at least on PKK casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to believe that PKK have only lost 3 men; they will never give out the factual numbers on their side. On the other hand, Turkey has been documenting every war casualty on both sides since the first operations in 90's. PKK claims should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.182.141 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who says the Turkish numbers are reliable, please. I oppose the removal of the PKK claim as that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. We must cover all claims, whether you and the Turkish government like it or not.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Turkish numbers are reliable. It is listed under a title like "Turkish claim" as it should. But PKK is basicly not announcing its losses regularly unlike Turkish army. For intance, they didn't say "We have lost 3 of our men so far" today. Therefore it is misleading and, in my opinion, should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until the claims on both sides can be independently verified, we should list both casualty claims, noting who is claiming what number. Publicus 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so where does this number come from? --K kc chan (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

everyone can reach pkk's claim in their internet site. english one isn't updated frequently as kurdish and turkish ones. www.hpg-online.net

In all fairness, the Turkish figures are way more credible, because the Turkish Army is made up of conscripts (it's not a professional army) and the Army has the duty to explain the families of the soldiers what happened to their sons. Soldiers killed in combat are considered "martyrs" in Turkey and are buried with an official state funeral. Families of the "martyrs" feel proud of their sons. So it's impossible for the Turkish Army to hide any casualty figures. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Res Geste Divi Augusti write is correct except one thing: "Not only Martyrs but also anyone is not buried. Since according to Islamic beliefs, corpses are taken to soil and buring the body of a dead human being is strictly prohibited in Islam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by

PKK claims can be wronged easily by a single photo from opeartion showing dead terrorists put into body bags and lined up 10:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 88.252.64.36 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why

This article is a good "tick-tock" of the operation but fails to say why the incursion began or what the Turkish goals are. They are targeting a group, yes, but why? Just some feedback for you from a reader passing by. 209.139.228.161 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish gunship

According to Turkish General Staff, one AH-1F Cobra was out of order. It had landed safely, was examined by military technicians.

Later on, PKK released an irrelevant video from 1997 to show the event, which was immediately disproved by Turkish authorities. I believe it gives a hint that they were lying from the beginning.

Then BBC incorrectly announced the whole thing as "Turkey admits losing a helicopter"

The only source for Turkish claim is Turkish General Staff. Do not make edits based on other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reliability or unreliability of the video which roj tv release isn't clear. it cant be said direcly that the video is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.170 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make an assumption on the video but on CNN, BBC and other source. And what the hell are you talking about not making edits based on other sources? That is not a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is, a neutral stand-point.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about CNN, BBC etc. The only source for Turkish claim is Turkish General Staff. And they said that the gunship was damaged, not destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the operation is over, PKK claim about Turkish casualties is no longer relevant

The Turkish military personnel aren't robots, each has a family of some sort. Therefore it's not possible for Turkish army to hide its losses.

Thus I'm going to remove PKK claim about Turkish casualties. This is not a violation of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the Turkish figures are way more credible, because the Turkish Army is made up of conscripts (it's not a professional army) and the Army has the duty to explain the families of the soldiers what happened to their sons. Soldiers killed in combat are considered "martyrs" in Turkey and are buried with an official state funeral. Families of the "martyrs" feel proud of their sons. So it's impossible for the Turkish Army to hide any casualty figures. HOWEVER, no matter how low the credibility of the PKK is (I, for one, don't believe in their figures) it is Wikipedia's duty to "list" all available information and not to take any sides. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't contest PKK's credibility, if I did, I would remove PKK claims altogether. But I respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

HOWEVER, as I said before there is no way for Turkish army to hide its losses since the operation is over. Thus PKK claim about Turkish casualties is totally irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the PKK's reported losses of their own members are not more verified than Turkey's so those shouldn't be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the words of Turkish military against PKK's words, it's pointless to argue the credibilities or whose claim is more legitimate. The best course of action for now is to leave both claims on the article until an independent report on this matter has been release by a third party. Also, Khakannn, Wikipedia is not a Turkish military website, therefore PKK claim is indeed relevant. --K kc chan (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the POV tag, why are only Turkish numbers present now? --78.2.35.167 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Turkish numbers shouldn't be the only ones as far as the PKK's losses. Turkish claims of Turkish losses we can say are probably right given the reasons above, but we can not say the same for Turkish claims of PKK losses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find them incredibly unrealistic, I did not remove PKK claims about PKK casualties. You may re-add it if you wish. Their latest report is 9 dead as far as I know, but I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indecisive?

Nobody knows what Turkish military intended with this operation initially. I think "Turkish withdrawal" as a result sounds pretty undisputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal in itself is not a result, there has to be an aim for a result, if the result is 'Withdrawal', then what is the aim? "To withdraw from northern Iraq" ???, its just not logical. There were objectives set by the Turkish Armed Forces, and they achieved those objectives, thus they withdrew since their aim was achieved. Nobody else but the Turkish Armed Forces can say whether they achieved their objectives or not because they are the ones that set the objectives. Cheers. 58.110.70.170 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish Armed Forces are not neutral commentators in this matter. In fact, they have a clear bias towards claiming 'victory'. The same can be said of US action in Iraq, where there are clear domestic political reasons to trumpet successes and downplay failures, as indeed is the case in any other conflict you care to name. The one indisputable fact is that Turkey did withdraw. It will be up to historians, commentators and neutral observers to determine if, in fact, anything particular was achieved. FWIW, in this instance, 'tactical' withdrawal seems a fair description of the outcome. Debate (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

There's a pretty bad edit war going on right now, and I don't know the topic well enough to put the article straight. Could some admin step in? Perhaps this article needs protection. --JaGa (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Several unsigned or new users with a clear agenda are extremely active at the moment Debate (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have requested protection for this article.Debate (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logistic buildings?

Please remove those funny stories from Turkish Military sources: Turkish ground forces destroyed or captured 47 caves, 187 shelters and bunkers, 29 MG positions, 38 AA guns, and 11 logistic buildings. The Turkish air force destroyed 13 AA guns, 69 caves, 87 shelters, 5 training centers, 21 logistic facilities, 12 command center, 11 signal center, 7 transmission facilities. or you can better write Türkish Military claims! May I can understand caves what about 11 logistic buildings, did PKK build a city up on the mauntains?

There are several major bases in the region. We're talking about thousands of people and a terrorist organization which managed to survive against one of the most powerful armies in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakannn (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<>>

Well, when you sum it up, it makes 116x caves, 274x shelters, 29x MG positions, 51x AA Artillery, 32 logistic buildings, 12 command centers, 11 signal centers, 7 transmission facitilities. You believe there are 4000 fully armed equipped terorists in hundreds of caves and shelters which also have dozens of AAAs but you dont believe they had 62 buildings(summed up all the buildings). These mentioned buildings are not airports or tank factories. they are small buildings like warehouses. Make 400 people(not 4000) construct buildings and you will have 60 buildings less then a week.

<<>>

Hürriyet as a reference?

I dont trust Hürriyets news and they all lying, please find something more international? or delete those Turkish propoganda stories!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.25.80 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can trust Hurriyet newspaper after military and cumhuriyet newspaper.Its a good newspaper and it is not propoganda lik Times or the eother emperialist newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.81.181 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There are clearly a significant percentage of editors on this page with significant difficulties sticking to independant, credible sources.

Normal encyclopedic conservatism suggests that all claims by involved parties be treated with a fair level of scepticism until history, and independant observers, have had a chance to analyse the situation objectively. None of the claims by the Turkish Military, the PKK, the Turkish giovernment, Hürriyet, etc. can be taken at face value. Claims by these organisations as a primary source of commentary must in all cases be acknowledged in the text so that readers can judge for themselves the credibility of the source. (nb. where there is disagreement do not assume that you are the primary arbiter of what constitutes a credibile source, take this as a sign that perhaps you should back off a little, or at least add a caveat or two.)

Anyhow, all you fanboys who only signed up to wikipedia to act as cheerleaders for your side can have your fun over the next week or two editing and re-editing until your fingers bleed. Once you get bored I'll drop back in at some stage and clean up the entry. Until then I'll re-add the POV tag that I removed when it appeared for a brief moment that disagrements were being resolved on the talk page like sensible wikipedians. Debate (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the POV template tag as the POV assault this article was previously subjected to appears to have subsided somewhat. While there remain problems, for the most part it's currently no better or worse than any other similar article elsewhere on Wikipedia. Debate (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists or Freedom fighters?

What for reason they are terrorist? In Turkey violence and discrimation are regularly used aganist Kurds! even their language are still restricted! PKK is fighting against this brutal pressure, what name you give them? But if you dont want make Turkish nationalist angry you can use something else but not a terrorist organization!!

THERE İS NOT A DİSCRİMİNATİON İN TURKEY FOR KURDS.I AM A KURD AND THEY ARE NOT DİSCRİMİNATE US.WE(WHOLE TURKS AND KURDS)DİSCRİMİNATE ONLY TERRORİSTS AND SİLLY FİGHTERS İN THE STREETS.YOU CANT KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE EXPERİENCED EVER.DONT TALK LİKE THİS.THEY AER NOT FREEDOM FİGHTERS.WHEN SADDAM KİLLİNG KURDS.TURKS OPEN THEİR GATES TO US BECAUSE OF THEİR MERCY TO US.WE COME TO THE TURKEY AND WE ARE HAPPY.THEY CAN ESTABLİSH A NEW KURDİSH REPUBLİC OR WHATEVER İN IRAQ BUT THEY DONT HAVE PERMİSSİON TO ESTABLİSH İN TURKEY.THURKEY HAVE RİGHT TO İNVADE IRAQ,ARMENİA AND GREECE BECAUSE THE MİSAK-I MİLL İS İN THE LAWS NOW WE HAVE RİGHT AND ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHİNG.BUT WE ARE GOOD AND WE LOVE MERCY BECAUSE OF OUR RELİGİON.NOW GO AND LOOK THE TURKİSH OR ****REAL**** ARMENİAN BOOKS YOU CAN SEE NO ARMENİAN GENOCİDE OR KURDİSH OR GREEK GENOCİDE.KURDS ARE MOUNTAİN TURKS.KURDS WHO LİVE İN IRAQ HİT US BACK AND KİLL SOME ARMENİAN CONVOYS GOİNG TO SYRİA.THEY KİLL 50 000 OR 60 000 ARMENİAN.BUT WE LOST TURKS LOST ARE VERY MUCH.YOU ARE EMPERİALİSTS.THE DAY WİLL CME AND USA WİL ATTACK US BUT WE HAVE NO FEAR.AT THE PAST ANYONE WON A WAR WİTH US.WE CAN DESTROY ALL THE TECHNOLOGY.THE DAY WİLL COME AND THERE WİLL BE PEACE.WE ALL THİNK LİKE THAT.

                                             TURKO-KURDİSH BOY
                                                ISTANBUL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.81.181 (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<>>

Thats your opinion. Now heres mine: Turkey is definately not the most democratic country in the world, but every single citizen has (more or less) the same rights and freedom. Turkey's most ambitious expanditures are for the regions the Kurds live most. ("GAP project" for example). Kurds have generally lower life standards true, but blame capitalism for that not the country. Kurdish is not restricted, most of the Kurds doesn't even know Turkish. The problem is, they can't survive unemployment, university exams and other things without knowing Turkish. It is like some people who live in England demanding Turkish should be the second language becouse they are too lazy to learn English. As a citizen of Turkey, speaking Turkish is not about "restriction" but its a necessity, just like I am not forced to learn English or French but I needed them one way or another.

Now what PKK is fighting for is a different story. Their aim is to found a Kurdish Country, which involves some territory of Turkey and Iran. As you may guess these countries are unhappy about it. PKK claim there is a oppression againist Kurds so that more rebels would join them with their efforts. In reality majority of Kurds dont want seperation from Turkey, they just want their conditions to be improved(just like many Turks including myself). Kurds have a democratic party, but all they do is complain about our military and politics. They are welcomed to propose their requests in the National Assembly (like increasing number of schools, new employment opportunuties etc).

These are my personal observations and opinions, as a person who live in Turkey have many Kurd friends. You can find me biased, and you are welcomed to discuss my claims. To be more neutral for wikipedia, PKK is officially designated as a Terrorist group by EU and US, so it would be "a PKK way" to redesignate them as freedom fighters.

Regards, Nephilem.

<<>> It is incredible that you claim in Turkey Kurdish is not restricted, for example, Kurdish radio broadcasts cant be longer than 45 minutes per day nor constitute more than five hours per week while television broadcasts are subject to even greater restrictions. Additionally, education in Kurdish is now permitted though only in private institutions. Is it not a restriction? I hope you can see this is a systematic assimilation of Kurds. I don’t need to deal politic and human right problems in Turkey. Under this conditions how we can talk happy together live. Of course we want to live with Turks together but not in these conditions. Secondly I never mean Turkish language is not necessary or less important, as I have excellence knowledge in Turkish, I think it is a good advantage! However I am against the restriction on Kurdish language.

If Turkey continues ignore Kurdish reality and use violence against people who resist. We can not be friend in the future. And continue here as you claim my military was successful or as I claim my guerrilla was more successful. However in my opinion only success will be by improving cultural and human right of Kurds, then we will be true friend. About designating of PKK is officially as a Terrorist group by EU and US in my opinion is mostly politic and economical reasons not a humatarian. Why EU and US dont designate a sister group PJAK (Party of Free Life of Kurdistan) as a terrorist gruop? Because Americans classify the P.K.K. as a terrorist group because it is fighting Turkey, an important American ally, while the P.J.A.K. is not labeled as such because it is fighting Iran. So whatever US and EU lebel Kurdish rebels, there is a simple way for Kurds either they will live like a slave under Turkish pressure or they will continue fight for Kurdish freedom, for Kurdish rights.

By the way, I found last version of article quite neutral. Thank editor for his afford and considerations.

<<>>

It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to designate the PKK anything at all. Wikipedia can report that the US and Turkey believe that the PKK are 'terrorists', and Wikipedia can report that the PKK (may or may not) consider themselves to be 'freedom fighters'. Whether you believe either of these claims will depend a lot on your own perspective. Encyclopedias whenever possible must limit themselves exclusively to objective verifiable facts, thereby allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Debate (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<>>

My objection is about the meaning of "restricting a language". If you can talk Kurdish in Turkey and no one kills or arrests you, its not restricted. About media and television, you are right its 'limited', but everything is somewhat limited to a degree, including religious programs or educational programs or advertisements, anything. Education in Kurdish is allowed in private schools only, correct, which also proves Kurdish is not actually restricted. But its not the goverments duty to open schools with education languages different from Turkish, as the official language of Turkey is Turkish.

For human rights, I cannot guarantee that Turkey is good in that area. But I can guarantee human rights work same for both Turks and Kurds.

If you think the aim of the recent operation is to eliminate presence of PKK in northern Iraq, you can incorrectly think the operation had failed and Turkey lost. The aim of the operation is to send message to both PKK and Iraqi goverment: "we can enter northern iraq if and when we find it necessary." and I think it was succesful. If we ever wanted genocide, I want to remind you Turkish military has more tanks than the number of armed guerrillas there. (or 2 times more APCs, 3 times more Artilleries, 250 times more men) The point is, be it PKK militant or not, most of them are still a citizen of Turkey. Thats why PKK militants who surrender by themselves are not punished by our law, simply interrogated and set free.

Do not blame Turkey for being aggresive or violent. Your violence is countered with ours, and many Kurdish people die. Our money is wasted, economy goes bad and reflects its effects to Kurdish people which were already in a bad condition. Capitalism, weak gets weaker... Sorry about that. By killing teachers and businessman in Eastern Turkey, PKK weakens the economic and educational situation of Kurdish people. If you look at it this way, its not Turkey, but PKK which is harming Kurdish People. Violence can never be a solution for Kurds. It can be an alternative for Turkish military, maybe a brutal one, but a solution nonetheless. But thats not our way, Kurds and Turks lived together since the foundation of ottoman emptire, fought together in the independence war, and should continue living together. See the real enemy, the ones who are trying to break this friendship, trying to weaken us both.

PS: I also think the article is neutral the way it is, and shouldn't be modified further, unless new informations come. However, it should not be forbidden to be modified, as new events may occur.

Regards, Nephilem.

<<>>

cobra

[2]this photos eleven years old. Why? Because, be careful. This operation was in the winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugoer (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who cares? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation?

Was this an occupation?Marc KJH (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, if the Turks stayed there for several years. It was more a cross-border operation. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term used consistently has been 'incursion', which seems appropriate. Debate (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008) Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to merge 'Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008)' into '2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq'. -- Debate (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008) be merged with 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq (this article). The information on the two pages is currently substantially identical, and while this may have a little to do with over-enthusiastic POV editing, the fact remains that there is significant overlap between the two issues. Note that a possible merger was previously discussed at the start of the Turkish incursion into Iraq at talk:Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008)#2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq merge. The discussion was inconclusive given that, I suspect that at that time it was unclear what the scope and consequences of the incursion would be. I would suggest that one month past Turkey's withdrawal from Iraq we can now say with a higher degree of certainty that there is insufficient material on this conflict to support two distinct articles. Debate (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but make sure the two periods are clearly pointed out--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A also agree, but define the two seperate periods(Top Gun)

I would continue to voice my disagreement with the merger of 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq into Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008). The incursion, though smaller than initially reported, was a major and distinct event, and the first major Turkish incursion in a decade. Therefore it clearly passes notability, and having an article on it would be no different than the other articles on Turkish incursions into Iraq. The question of merging is therefore simply an editorial choice. If somebody comes to Wikipedia looking for information on the incursion, it will obviously more difficult for them to find it if it is hidden in a more general article. However, a merger the otherway around might work. The aerial bombing campaign and the incursion are clearly linked, so I would suggest that the pre-incursion bombing campaign be added as its own distinct section in the incursion article. Thinking of this as an editorial choice, it would be much easier and more logical to find this in the incursion article than vice versa.

With that done, there can certainly be a name change to the article if desired. Some might argue that 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq is too narrow if the bombing campaign is to be included, whereas Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008) is certainly far too broad because there were clashes in the late summer early fall 2007 that are not within its scope, and any new activities later this year would be distinctly different from this winter campaign. I would be curious what naming scheme might be used. Joshdboz (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshhdboz, the current proposal is to merge Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008) into 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, which is the opposite of what was proposed the last time this was discussed. As you say, a merger in the other direction to the previous discussion makes more sense because the incursion is an issue of international significance, while the bombing is significantly less significant in scale. My position is that the article name doesn't need changing because the issue of most significance here is the military incursion, while the bombing campaign can now be seen predominantly in context (ie "In the lead up to the incursion, starting 16 December 2007, Turkish forces began a bombing campaign..."). I can see an argument for reconsidering the title, but an expanded date (eg 2007-2008) just seems unnecessarily clumsy for me, not to mention potentially misleading, but I am open to suggestions. I note, as well, that long range bombing appears to be continuing, therefore a merged article will still need sections for both pre and post incursion events. Debate (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that everyone who has posted so far appears to be in agreement, and in the absence of any further discussion on the topic, I propose to undertake the merger this coming weekend. This does not preclude further discussion about renaming the merged article, if people think that worthwhile. Debate (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the clarification. I agree that a number based name could get clumsy, though if anyone had suggestions they should be entertained - I guess it will eventually depend on what the history books end up calling this. The background of the merged section should certainly include what already exists here, though I'll see if I can add the October 2007 clashes in Hakkari info, as those events were clearly the impetus for the winter campaign. Joshdboz (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simple name

The current name is too long, this page should redirect to Operation Sun. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renaming this article as suggested. Such a renaming would be consistent with other articles related to prior Turkish incursions into Iraq - Operation Northern Iraq, Operation Steel, Operation Hammer (1997) and Operation Dawn (1997). Debate (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely been plenty of debate about whether to use operational names or not (Ex: Operation Just Cause was renamed United States invasion of Panama). However, the current title is clunky, and all similar articles use the operation name, so I would support the change unless anyone has strong objections. Joshdboz (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to The Devil's Advocate (below). In my view the best suggestion so far has been 'Operation Sun', which I infer from your comments you oppose. Although intention is hard to establish in instances such as this the winter bombing campaign is clearly relevant contextually to Operation Sun and of insufficient importance in it's own right to justify a discrete article. The incursion is the event under which the vast majority of users are likely to access the article initially and, it seems reasonable in my view for the article to be named entirely after the most significant event discussed within it. Trying to capture every possible nuance of a complex issue in an article title is inevitably going to be a fraught exercise. Debate (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this would be inaccurate as the Winter bombing campaign is not part of Operation Sun or any incursion. The title should be something along the lines of Turkish operations in Northern Iraq (Winter 2007 - Spring 2008) as that does a good job of summing up everything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-merger

Following the merger I've had a good look over the article and it reads pretty well. POV issues are minor and the article is well referenced (anyone, however, who wants to track down some stable English language sources to replace some of the existing Turkish language and obsolete Google references gets my thanks, at least, in advance!). IMHO the merged article is significantly stronger than either of the two separate articles and well illustrates the excellent work done by contributors to date. Thanks everyone! Debate (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I will see if I can fix some of the refs soon. Joshdboz (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I probably would have opposed a merger had I realized this was put up for a merger, but now that it's been merged I think the title should probably be changed. The Winter bombing campaign and other attacks are likely connected to the incursion, but unless there's a source establishing that the winter bombing campaign was intended to make way for the incursion I don't think this article should be named after the incursion. However, I think this can't include information from all of last year. Since they all happened in the Winter that could be included in the article title to properly date it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this comment under the existing discussion on renaming, under 'simple name' above. Debate (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory

So who won the war, more like and indecisive outcome to me. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides still claim victory and both sides give different KIA rates and since there's no independent source to confirm either we can only say that its either indecisive or claimed victory ~ Zirguezi 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pkk Is a Illegal And Terrorist Organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superious (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the POV victory claims and added neutral and sourced information by the results.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a biased article. The simplest solution is to keep this out, and write that both sides claim victory. That's neutral. By the way, please do not comment on my ethnicity, or religious views, I want to keep them secret for safety reasons. So, don't call me Turkish. Kavas (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe be more specific? What article is biased and why? Also: http://www.globalresearch.ca keeps getting removed as biased which is just stupid considering it's a Canadian organization and a mayor analyst of the war on terror ~ Zirguezi 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fully removed. It's only removed from results section, where a neutral source is needed. For PKK claims section, it's kept. What's stupid is to claim the neutrality of the article without searching for its author. The author is Sungur Savran, a man from Turkey, who is against the Turkish government's Kurdish policy. The author supports the "Kurdish people"'s struggle. Kavas (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats of but if the PKK are terrorists then the Turkish Army are child killers and village guard mercenaries. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish casualties

...are fully verifiable. There is no "Turkish claim" about Turkish casualties, only fully verifiable facts. --Mttll (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090814182841/http://a.abcnews.com:80/International/wireStory?id=4366883 to http://a.abcnews.com/International/wireStory?id=4366883

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. 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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]