Talk:Yeşilova incident

Untitled

I have put this in Category:Gulf War, even though it took place a month after the war ended. I'm open for a better category.Obina 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

You mention that there has been no official statement either from the British or Turkish government as well as the fact that the references are at it's core reproduced testimonies of the sole witness to this event. This is not a NPOV document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieSkeptic82 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is based solely on Robert Fisk's journalism, who is not only British (a side in the matter) but also is quoted for saying "journalistic objectivity is "no longer relevant" to the Middle East". Read more about the criticism towards this journalist.

I can also write about the ridicilous rationalizing of British forces' actions within Turkish borders in the article but since they are all based on Fisk's "objectivity", I don't think there is a need for that for now.

The NPOV tag should stay until the article is rewritten on neutral grounds.--Doktor Gonzo 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is perhaps the most well-known and well-respected journalists in regards to the Middle East and has been reporting from the region for over 30 years. Just because some Israeli authors and neo-cons don't like his content of reporting doesn't negate the factuality of his dispatches. And just because his nationality is British is a ridiculous notion to raise because it just signifies that you are completely unaware of his heavy criticism of Tony Blair's foreign policy, of Great Britain's designs on the Middle East after World War I, its involvement in the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars, on Ireland and Ulster movement, etc. His quotation on "journalistic objectivity" is in fact a longstanding criticism of Western journalists who have not always honestly report on the topics on the Middle East in deference to staying in media pools or risking to upset another government. Unless you can pinpoint something more concretely that is at fault with his report on Yasilova, then this tag is completely unwarranted. --Marshal Bagramyan 00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A fine example of Tautology dear sir. You wrote a whole paragraph but all you are saying is "I trust Robert Fisk's POV". Well I don't trust his judgement and apperantly some more people don't. I don't think an article based solely on Robert Fisk's "good judgement" is acceptable. This is not Fiskipedia after all. And if you can, since I can only ask, please try to be more civilized, removing tags without consent and calling them rubbish ain't nice.--Doktor Gonzo 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when denying something you've done made an issue "controversial". But his is a time honored tact by the government in Ankara. I have lived in Turkey long enough to smell when someone's telling the truth and when they're not. As an air hostess asked Fisk on the plane, "You're the one being deported? Then you must have been telling the truth." I have heard that sentiment from countless Turks. But the media here is not about truth. It's just out to drum up sales with whatever sensationalism it can dig up, make up, or throw up. Whoever screams "Lie" loud enough, is right. It has nothing to do with truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.190.224 (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)