Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

POV tag

The "article" is nothing but cheap anti-PKK propaganda. Crap like "..A particularly gruesome choice among PKK's terror targets..." says it all. Eighter this article make some serious progress or I'll have to nominate it for deletion. -- Karl Meier 16:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Anti-PKK propoganda, are you saying people should support a world wide terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Turks, Iranians, Syrians, and Kurds themselves? This is clearly a terrorist organization that kills civilians, and they are of the same category as Al-Qaida. Over 30,000 people of Turkish and Kurdish origin have been killed by the conflict the PKK terrorists have created, and yet still there are people in the modern world, such as you, actually trying to imply this terrorist group has a right to kill the innocent. Please stop spreading your propaganda by claiming this article is anti-PKK. Because if you're not anti-PKK, then you are a terrorist yourself. I don't see anyone going "this is nothing but anti-alqaida propaganda". This article is objective and shows only facts. Please go to Turkey and come back after you have been through one of their terrorist attacks before you spread your propoganda. Every few months, you will see a new terrorist attack by the PKK or another Kurdish terrorist group. Kurds and Turks alike, all over Turkey, want the violence to stop, and the only way to stop it is if people stop these terrorist groups from being formed or expanding. Before these terrorist groups were formed, there was peace, and everyone wants it to stay that way. Violence is not the answer, and this article supports this idea. -- Executex 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Maybe a way to NPOV this POV orgy of an "article", could be to write a new articles called something like "Casualties in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict", and change this into a redirect. Any thoughts? -- Karl Meier 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For a start though, I'll just make it a redirect to the main PKK article. We don't have articles that list or discuss non-notable civilian casualties caused by 9/11, and I don't see why we should have such a list of non notable victims of this conflict. -- Karl Meier 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

you better nominated it for deletion before redirecting. you shouldn't redirect a page just because you can't see why there is a need for this.--Hattusili 14:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note this, during that conflict (and still), the Turkish army tortured, killed and “disappeared” civilians, and burned hundreds of thousands of peasants out of their homes and blamed to PKK or other organization. It seems to me, Turkish Counter Disinformation Service makes a good job here but we have to be aware these are pathetic lies.--Freedomhunter 22:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that it should be deleted. I just turned into a more appropiate redirect for the reasons mentioned above. It's noting but pure anti-kurdish propaganda, and it's obviously a disgrace to Wikipedia. Let's not cheapen the project, with something like this. -- Karl Meier 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not redirect without consensus. It should be mentioned in a short summary on that article though -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is entirely one sided and it's purpose is very transparent. It's not a surpise though, when you read the other Turkish state-propaganda articles here on Wikipedia such as the PKK article. If this is to be neutral it should be entirely rewritten, and renamed to something like casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. As it is now it is entirely one-sided as it doesn't mention any of the violence, killing and other violations of human rights commited by the Turkish state, something which of course has happend on a much larger scale. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well an article called Civilian casualties caused by PKK is hardly going to be something that make PKK sound good if you were expecting that, but sure it definately has to comply with the WP:NPOV -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, and it's not going to be neutral, when it as a consequence of it's POV title only mention casualties inflicted by the Kurdish side of the conflict. That is the reason why it should be moved to the title mentioned above. -- Karl Meier 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean, agreed -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I also noticed that it has just been added to AfD, so now we will see how that develop. -- Karl Meier 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You talked about redirecting but voted "strong delete", interesting -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A redirect is the fast and easy solution. However, as the title is obviously POV and doesn't help us to write a neutral and balanced article, believe that it is the best solution to delete it right away. -- Karl Meier 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a notable matter and includes useful information that can be used in the new article so there is no reason for it to be "deleted right away". This is because although articles should be NPOV, information such as this should not be censored -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's a notable matter, and that's why it deserve to be discussed in a NPOV article with a NPOV title. We are not talking about censoring anything here. -- Karl Meier 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree with a renaming of the article. The civilian casualties caused by the PKK is a very specific and notable part of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, something which deserves its own article. We have to remember that the violence instituted by the PKK is not supported by the majority of Kurds, therefore it would be misleading to rename it the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. It would be akin to renaming Al-Qaeda articles the American-Islamic conflict. --A.Garnet 12:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should be renamed. I can understand the issues with the "Turkish-Kurdish" conflict. I suggest it be renamed to Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey. - FrancisTyers 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see why we are shying away from focusing on the PKK here, we are not just describing casualties of a conflict, but more specifically their strategy of attacking civilians to achieve a political aim. People just seem too keen to place these attacks within a "what Turkey has done wrong" context, well that can be another article, but we should not take our attention away from an organised attack against civilians as a topic in itself. --A.Garnet 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Because thats NPOV. If we are presenting one side of the story (what the PKK has done wrong) it would be remiss not to present the other side of the story (what the Turkish state has done wrong). What you are talking about is a POV fork, which won't do anyone any good. - FrancisTyers 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is Francis, your attempting to link Turkeys domestic policy towards its Kurds, with the actions of an extreme Marxist-Leninist Kurdish insurgency group, whose stated aim is to achieve indepdence from Turkey, Iraq and Iran. There seems to be this prejudice that the PKK's actions are representative of the plight of Turkish Kurds, when in fact, the majority of Kurdish people do not even vote for Kurdish parties in Turkey. Turkish - Kurdish domestic problems can be an article in itself, but attempting to use it as justification or explanation for the PKK's attacks on civilians is a POV on its own. It could be said that regardless of Turkeys treatment of Kurds, the PKK as a Marxist leninist group would continue to carry out terrorist attacks for independence based on Turkey being capitalist - this is another POV. It should be accepted that the PKK carries out attacks on civilians for political and strategic objectives, and these should be explained on their own. --A.Garnet 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I know who the PKK are. Unfortunately as I've explained to Greeks many a time, national feeling can definitely not be equated with voting. I think you misunderstand, we aren't presenting the actions of the Turkish state as a "justification", we're not presenting them as anything except actions. If you think that the actions of the Turkish state justify PKK actions then thats your POV. I urge you to read our policy on this matter. - FrancisTyers 09:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is this article should concentrate on the specific objective of the PKK's targetting of civilians for political objectives. This is notable in itself without overlapping it with Turkish counterinsurgency efforts. The article is being turned from and explanation of PKK insurgency strategies to a general timeline of Turkish/Kurdish/PKK deaths. In the Afd you stated "t is imperative that the article describe killings by both Turkish Military, PKK and Village guards" - if we are describing the general poltical/security situation then yes, the entire context must be explained. But this article should not be a general overview of the Turkish/PKK insurgence, but focus on the tactical nature of the PKK in targetting civilians, not only in Turkey, but Iraq and Iran also. --A.Garnet 12:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to pitch in like that guys but I think A.Garnet has a point here. For example Global Security website states the following about PKK abuse of civilians in Northern Iraq: The PKK committed numerous abuses against civilians in northern Iraq throughout 1997. For example, on August 4, five persons were reportedly kidnaped from the village of Gunda Jour by a PKK band. Iraqi Kurds reported that on October 23, a PKK unit killed 14 civilians (10 of them children) and wounded 9 others in attacks on the villages of Korka, Chema, Dizo, and Selki. On December 13, seven Assyrian civilians reportedly were ambushed and killed near the village of Mangeesh. Many villagers in Dohuk and Irbil provinces, particularly those from isolated areas, were reported to have abandoned their homes and temporarily relocated to cities and lager towns to escape PKK attacks. This can be included in this article as well. --Gokhan 13:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable victims

YOu reverted my deletion of a section that mention some victims of the conlict. The language was as it is in the whole article very strong and biased, and I don't see anything that indicate that any of these victims should be notable in any way. Do you? -- Karl Meier 13:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a chatroom so lets not make it one. If I did not see it as notable I would not have reverted it. Ofcourse they are notable, they are civilians who were killed in a conflict so their lives are ever so important and very much relevant to the article. Until there is a decision on the article, the info should be kept. Feel free to make the wordings less POV though -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you believe this is turning into a chat room. I believe that it is a very serious question if we can consider all (civilian) victims of a conflict notable. The article itself mention that there is thousands of victims in this conflict, and there is õf course no way that we can mention them on a web-page like this. Wikipedia doesn't discuss all the civilian victims of 9/11, and it's not a memorial. If we are to mention individual victims, then we have to establish their notability somehow beyond the fact that the died because of this particular conflict. -- Karl Meier 13:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned chatroom because you said.. "you reverted.." instead of "my edit was reverted..". I don't know, I am not actually too informed on the matter so instead I have contacted the user who started the article to comment. Is there a reason why some cases are more notable than the others? -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course some victims can be more notable then others. If Elton John was killed in this conflict or in 9/11 then there is no question that it should be mentioned. -- Karl Meier 13:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it should be mentioned that some teachers were killed but perhaps not in that way it was before -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd agree to that. However, we should also mention why some teachers where a target for the PKK. -- Karl Meier 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well as long as that can be referenced by neutral sources I am sure that it is a good idea -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The issue can be mentioned as it is notable, individuals however should not be mentioned unless we can establish that they are (as individuals) somehow notable enough to be mentioned. -- Karl Meier 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I had never agreed more with anyone on Wikipedia as much as I have with you on this talk page ;) -- - K a s h Talk | email 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

According to HRW, journalists and a member of Parliament have been suspected of being killed by paramilitary organisations connected to the Turkish state:

An appalling pattern persisted in southeast Turkey, in which civilians were killed in death squad fashion--frequently with one bullet to the back of the head. In almost no case did the government make serious efforts to investigate and to bring the killers to justice. Among those executed in this way were a Kurdish Member of Parliament; four journalists and two newspaper sellers, all connected to pro-Kurdish, left-wing journals; two human rights leaders; several members of the Democratic Party and its forerunner, the People's Labor Party; doctors, lawyers and other community leaders, as well as shepherds and villagers. The Turkish government was unresponsive to protests and pleas to investigate from Helsinki Watch and other human rights organizations. It was widely believed in Turkey that a counter-guerrilla organization tied to security forces had carried out the killings. Several of the murdered journalists had written articles describing a purported relationship between security forces and the alleged counter-guerrilla force. [1]

I'd say an MP is pretty notable. Do we have a name? - FrancisTyers 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Another question?

PKK killed also a lot of soldiers performing their compulsory military service. Most of these were not real career soldiers but civilian young men who are soldier for some months and happened to be posted near PKK locations. Should we consider them civilian or military?

Military. - FrancisTyers 09:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed info

I guess this can stay here until the article is renamed.

2005

  • November 15,2005: Three Kurdish civilians were killed by Turkish forces in the city of Gever.[1]

There are no cities called Gever in Turkey; do you mean Yüksekova?--Hattusili 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If thats the Turkish name, sure why not :) - FrancisTyers 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note on rename

In closing this, I renamed to the title that had the most support. However, there was some discussion about other names. People should look at the AfD and discuss here if they want to rename again. Marskell 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this title is not appropriate; maybe "Civilian Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict" could be better. In addition the conflict is not between Turks and Kurds it is between Turkish state and the PKK. Many of the people who were killed by PKK (both civilians and soldiers)were Kurds. Anoher point, PKK is not struggling only against Turkey; Iran, Syria and Iraq Kurds are among their targets.--Hattusili 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree. The term "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is favored by the usual suspects who would wish that there was one. Turkey's Minister of interior affairs is Kurdish, and Abdullah Öcalan speaks only Turkish. Where do you draw the lines? At this very moment, there are three Kurds in my balcony who are doing a painting job:) Am I in a state of conflict with them? Nothing could be further than the truth. Normal people seek better lives, not conflict. --Cretanforever 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about my suggestion of: Civilian casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey ? - FrancisTyers 16:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think thats appropriate considering their targets go beyond just Turkey, and that they seek indepdence from Iran and Iraq also. Someone made the suggestion of List of PKK attacks. Since this is the direction the article is going in thats what i suggest. --A.Garnet 16:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
No, because that is not an NPOV title. How about Civilian casualties of the conflict between governments and the PKK. - FrancisTyers 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand your thinking Francis, there exists List of ETA attacks, Chronology of Provisional IRA actions, why can there not be List of PKK attacks? We are not explaining actions, or elaborating on a conflict, we are just listing the actions of an organisation. --A.Garnet 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets try to evade "ethnicity" in article title so as to evade useless and endless debates on fine points of ethics... Since this is going to be a list, something long the line with "List of attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party" or more preferably "List of activities by the Kurdistan Workers' Party" (evade abriviations too). What do you say?
This supposed to be the list of pkk activities/attacks right?
--Cat out 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. As I said many times before, PKK has killed more than just Turks. --K a s h Talk | email 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok this is getting messy. Lets organise. --Cat out 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alf (is it?) you can't compare the IRA/ETA with the PKK on this front. As far as I am aware, there was never a large scale military conflict in the North of Ireland or the Basque country such as occurred, is occurring in southeastern Turkey/northern Kurdistan. State involvement is covered in such articles as Bloody Sunday, as when civilians were killed by the UK forces, it caused a lot of fuss. Perhaps we should have an article listing civilians killed by the Turkish state, but I hardly think that is NPOV. We'd then have one list of "Civilians killed by the PKK" and one list of "Civilians killed by the Turkish state". It makes sense to have the two in one article, as they are inextricably linked. I maintain that Civilian casualties of the conflict between governments and the PKK is currently the most explanatory title. - FrancisTyers 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Posible. But I do not want any article to become a body count showcase... I am not concered about the body count as much as am concerned about activity of the PKK ranging from villige assaults to skirmishes to suicide bombings. If body count has to be presented a graph is much more approporate.
Compared to IRA and ETA pkk was a hell of a lot more active and I would despise a Category:PKK attacks or Category:Kurdish terorrism etc... A list is much more managable. Individual incidents should have their own pages given we arent turning wikipedia into a memorial.
--Cat out 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of the extensive nature of the list (there is just too much information). Attacks by the Turkish goverment and/or Turkish nationalists should be a seperate list in my view. I am interested in creating a list about Turkish militaries campaigns against the PKK. --Cat out 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion

List of attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party

  • Support second choice --Cat out 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for now unless a better name is suggested. --K a s h Talk | email 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Cretanforever 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Hattusili 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--A.Garnet 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose we haven't discussed the options sufficiently. This poll is void. - FrancisTyers 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    the "poll" is to discuss options. This isnt a poll. Just an attempt to organise thoughts so we do not rant... Notice that I havent placed this on the RfM page (or whatever its name) --Cat out 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Francis. Would Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey be a better title? —Khoikhoi 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this is to be a neutral and balanced article, then the casualties inflicted by both sides should be mentioned and discussed. -- Karl Meier 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Umm... I think "casualities" are not encyclopedic... but actions of the PKK and Turkish government is. I recomend focusing on the actions of the PKK and the Turkish government and then mention the concequences of the actions (Body count etc) --Cat out 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    The total amount of casualties is encyclopedic, and something like what we have in an article such as World War II casualties is what I would prefer. Also, every single action of PKK/Turkish doesn't have to be notable, and I believe that it would be more useful for our readers if we discuss these issues in more general terms. -- Karl Meier 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Agree with Karl Meier. - FrancisTyers 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. But I do not believe we have any definate numbers. Both sides are exagerating the causalities they inflict and recieve (whenever its conviniant). If we were to talk in "general terms" like that article, this entier list would be 2, 3 lines.
    Every major offensive in the current iraq war has its own article, suicide bombing of london metro has its own article. I do not see why we cant do the same here.
    --Cat out 17:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    If we are going mention every incident in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, then it's going to be an article with a lot of very long list with a lot of information that is most not likely not very notable, and of very little interest to the vast majority of our readers. Also it doesn't have to be very, very short just because it discuss it's subject in more general terms. We can have statistics of how many casualties per year, how many civilian, how many military and so on. We can include a lot of interesting statistical material. Also it's not a problem that the two sides disagree about the numbers. According to NPOV we can mention the figures from both sites of the conlict (and that would add even more "meat" to the article too.) . -- Karl Meier 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree. The activity of PKK and the Turkish government should be the interest. Wikipedia is not a memorial.
    If we are to display death count statistics per year, that can be presented with a single picture (graph) showing how many PKK militans, Turkish Gov personel, and civilians have lost their lives per year. Then everything on the article should be removed since incidents would not be necesary. Article wouldnt be very informative either.
    The list will be very long, thats why I recommended two lists so it would be easier to follow. We want a coverage in great detail on wikipedia, I do not see what could be wrong with that. The Turkish government had a number of operations in Northern Iraq against the PKK in the 1990's. Surely these are notable. PKKs suicide bombings throughout the conflict is also very notable. Most of the conflict was attack then counter attack then counter counter attack... etc... Any verifiable activity should be present in the article.
    --Cat out 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I think "Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey" or something along that line, would be more neutral. --ManiF 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support barfly 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of activities by the Kurdistan Workers' Party

  • Support first choice --Cat out 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--A.Garnet 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Deepblue06 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Karl Meier 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - FrancisTyers 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

List of activities by the Turkish Government against the Kurdistan Workers' Party

This article is mostly about the activities about the PKK. A seperate list can provide info regarding the activities of the Turkish gov.
  • Support --Cat out 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than the Turkish government defending itself from terrorism there was no other action. -- Executex 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey

  • Support if this isn't a poll. I'm going to change the "move request" to discussion then. Feel free to revert. - FrancisTyers 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this name seems better. —Khoikhoi 06:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This sounds more professional. Turkish-Kurdish conflict: not all Kurds are in conflict with Turks. Chaldean 06:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The conflict is not just in Southestern Turkey, but Iraq, Iran, Istanbul, the southern coast...this title would be innacurate to say the least. --A.Garnet 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose wikipedia is not a memorial also PKK's activity was not restricted to southeastern Turkey. --Cat out 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Karl Meier 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per below article, southeastern Turkey is only part of it Cretanforever
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey

  • Support per above. - FrancisTyers 10:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not all casualties are civilians. —Khoikhoi 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - See above. --A.Garnet 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose wikipedia is not a memorial also PKK's activity was not restricted to southeastern Turkey. --Cat out 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't have to be a memorial. The casualties should be discussed in more general terms, and the article shouldn't mention every (non-notable) incident in this conflict. -- Karl Meier 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per User:Cool Cat--Hattusili 06:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per below article, southeastern Turkey is only part of it Cretanforever
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties of the conflict between governments and the PKK

  • Support per above. - FrancisTyers 10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not all casualties are related to the PKK. —Khoikhoi 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not all casualties are the result of a conflict with the government.
  • Oppose wikipedia is not a memorial. Also the conflict was not restricted to the "government" and the PKK --Cat out 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeThe conflict was not only between governments and PKK. (for example PKK had military actions against the Kurdish organisations in Iraq)--Hattusili 06:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per below article, Helen Bennett and Tara Whelan, nor the three Turkish dead, were not part of any government. Cretanforever
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

List of events in the conflict between the Turkish Government and the Kurdistan Workers Party

  • Support both precise and concise. - FrancisTyers 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Cat out 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I said, PKK has had more conflicts than just with Turkish Government. --K a s h Talk | email 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support yes, but the vast majority were in Turkey. —Khoikhoi 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per below article, Helen Bennett and Tara Whelan, nor the three Turkish dead in Kuşadası, were not party to any conflict. Cretanforever
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

List of events in the conflict involving the Turkish Government and/or the Kurdistan Workers Party

  • Support This is getting pretty long... --Cat out 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - FrancisTyers 22:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose any rename. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a good NPOV title. --Moby 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I will tell you the problem with your suggestions. Firstly: Civilian casualties of the conflict between governments and the PKK This is not just a conflict between a government and a guerilla group. When the PKK targets foreigners at tourist resorts, how can this be defined as a conflict with the government? When the PKK kills Kurds who disagree, how is this also a conflict with the government? Furthermore, the PKK's actions are not linked solely to civilians, just recently they attacked a gas pipeline. As for Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey - PKK does not operate in just Turkey, like other organsiations, it is cross boundary and has inflicted casualties in Iraq and Iran also. The final suggestion, that we should list casualties inflicted by both sides, this would be fine if it was a war, but it is not. It is a guerilla campaign that is being fought, and there are no clear "sides". There are probably two times as many Kurds fighting the PKK in the Turkish army than there are in the PKK. The fact is the PKK is a recognised terrorist organsiation by the US and EU, and this makes the actions of this organisation notable on its own. --A.Garnet 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel "casualities" are irrelevant. We can talk about actions taken by the Turkish government against the PKK and civilians (deliberate or not). We can talk about PKK's actions against the government and civilians (deliberate or not). We need at least two lists since there are too many incidents to fit in one article. Assuming we will talk about hundereds od incidents when done. --Cat out 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're not talking about casualties then something like Conflict in southeastern Turkey would be good. - FrancisTyers 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Meaning pkk suicide bombing of Ankara and Istanbul wouldnt deserve mention... I told you conflict isnt restricted to that place. --Cat out 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
They may suicide bomb in those cities, but it doesn't mean the majority of the conflict is in southeastern Turkey, thats what they're fighting for. Of course they should be mentioned. - FrancisTyers 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to come to some agreement about the fundamental purpose of this article. Is is to list the activities of a guerilla group? To explain the Turkish-PKK conflict? To limit explanations to a geographic area? what? At the moment, the different titles proposed seem to be taking the aritcle in different directions. If we can agree to what it is we're trying to show, then perhaps we can come up with a name. --A.Garnet 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Should be mentioned? Of course! Just I do not see the point of mentioning it on the article's title. The conflict is the reason of deaths not the region. PKK is fighting for an independent Kurdistan, Turkish government is fighting against that. This should be in the lead. Needless to say the lead is at a pathetic shape at the moment.--Cat out 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The current title is very poorly chosen. PKK does not represent Kurdish people, it only represents a violent fraction. Therefore, it's quite problematic to frame the conflict between Turkey and PKK as the conflict between Turkish and Kurdish people. Deepblue06 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party

Asuming the name will be this, what do we want to cover? This lost should cover "attacks" on military and civilian targets. OF course we can have two lists, one for military and another for civilian but often attacks on the millitary damaged civilain facilities as well... --Cat out 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I propose covering notable activities that made its way as headline news. --Cat out 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Alternatively every incident reported in the media can be covered. Though that would be tedious and list can get quite long. I do not want this to turn out like the pkk timeline which is a mess. --Cat out 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note this, during that conflict (and still), the Turkish army tortured, killed and “disappeared” civilians, and burned hundreds of thousands of peasants out of their homes and blamed to PKK or other organization. It seems to me, Turkish Counter Disinformation Service makes a good job here but we have to be aware these are pathetic lies.--Freedomhunter 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont post everything in bold. I am inclined to ignore such posts...
I am not an agent of the "Turkish Counter Disinformation Service" nor do I subscribe to its publications.
Unless you can cite a reputable source to base your claim, I do not want to hear about it.
--Cat out 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Freedomhunter, please stop spreading your propoganda there is no such service in Turkey, and the Turkish army does not use torcher
and does not kill civilians, only military targets of terrorist organizations such as the PKK in self-defense from their terrorist
attacks as everyone in the world has already accepted. -- Executex 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorting

I prefer a chronological sorting rather than sorting by type.

Sections labeled "Massacres" will cause problems. I would prefer "Mass killings" as that would be more NPOV. Objections?

--Cat out 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I dislike the way we are doing this. It is very hard to follow. I recomend linking directly to the remote site info is based on Like this. --Cat out 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So that now the name is changed...

Can we also add military casualties caused by PKK? --Gokhan 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Be bold. --Cat out 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bus bomber who killed Irish student in Kusadasi arrested

Sunday April 9th 2006

CAMERON PHILLIPS in ISTANBUL

TURKISH police have arrested a man believed to have set off a bomb which killed 17-year-old Irish tourist Tara Whelan in Turkey last year.

See Irish Independent 9 April 2006 for the complete article.
Removed copyvio. --Cat out 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch references

In the Notes section there are 25 references to simply http://www.hrw.org/ — while the various statements that refer to this may be valid, I feel that a top-level link is insufficient and propose replacing them with fact-tags. I invite other editors to review these citations and encourage all to research the statements that use this reference and add more specific links. --Moby 07:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Absent any objections, these references have been replaced with fact-tags; please add fully qualified URLs if you can. --Moby 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You might as well...

Bolding a pov statement isnt good enough, try something like this instead...</sarcasm> Let's edit responsibly please... --Cat out 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

headline change

I would like to change "Massacres" to "Mass Killings" if there are no objections.--Hattusili 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. And I would like to change the title to PKK attacks, in the same vein as List of ETA attacks. Cretanforever

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. How would we include Uğur Kaymaz, the riots in Yüksekova, etc.? —Khoikhoi 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Attacks do not necesaryily mean suicide bombings. Riots are an attack against local authority right? No real problem there. --Cat out 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what are the Uğur Kaymaz riots? --Cat out 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
In the same way as the article Chronology of Provisional IRA actions includes Bloody Sunday (1972). Cretanforever

Agree, PKK attacks would be better--Hattusili 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd rather it be done at requested moves instead. That way we can have more time to make a consensus. —Khoikhoi 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[2]

[3]

For Provisional IRA and for ETA, a list was drawn and that was that, the pages were developped on that basis. No deletion requests, no name changes, no endless search for consensus (anyone can express opinions here). With a writer, it is natural to draw up a bibliography, with a singer a discography, with an actor a filmography. With an organisation like the PKK, one draws up a list of attacks. Cretanforever

Ok, but compare to al-Aqsa Intifada#Timeline. Most international observers note that both the PKK and the Turkish state commit infractions against human rights. So why should we list only those by the PKK? Because there are more of them? —Khoikhoi 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The current name is good. - FrancisTyers · 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights infractions by the Turkish state or something along the line. Whoever wants to start it should go ahead. We put a "see also" link to PKK attacks article (and vice versa) and each user works on his cherished subject matters. A number of users could even find it a novel and refreshing exercise to have to develop an article from the scratch. Style and sources can then be discussed on that basis (for example, there could be a discussion on whether http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/kurdistan96/Photo1.jpg, inactive since 2001, is a reliable source.

So! Two articles! PKK attacks and Human rights infractions by the Turkish state

Cretanforever

But these are two very closely-related subjects, Cretanforever. When the PKK makes an attack the Turkish army responds. To have them in different articles would not help the reader, it would just make it more difficult for them. —Khoikhoi 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention violating NPOV. You compare with ETA and the IRA, but typically the British and Spanish states didn't move armed forces into Basque/Irish populated areas and start razing villages. - FrancisTyers · 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Britain's dirty war. The Provos were clean on drugs. Cretanforever
As I said, typically the British army did not go around razing villages in Nationalist/Republican areas. - FrancisTyers · 23:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I ask both of you to cease this rather unseless chain of comments sladering random countries... --Cat out 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Turkish government and its military organizations did not make human rights infractions to anyone. There was never such evidence, and for you to claim that is completely random and unprovoked. Please find real evidence before you make such preposterous claims against one of the most democratic countries in the region. This article is about the PKK terrorist organization that has been trying to use violence on civilian population in order to gain popularity and gain independence for Kurdistan. Even advocates of Kurdistan do not promote terrorism and the PKK in order to achieve their goals. In addition your image of two heads that was dismembered looks very photoshopped and fake. Especially since a soldier doing that would have been instantly kicked out of the army and sent to prison.-- Executex (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Coffin image

Is that really necesary? I do not believe fair-use really applies since the coffin picture does not help us better identify the issue. Coffin only means Kurds burry their dead in coffins just like most of the world (this article isnt about the Kurdish burrial rituals). In the ligh of NPOV (assuming image is OK with copyrights), we will have to present a turkish coffin as well. --Cat out 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the image to balance the article out. The above image shows what most Turkish sources show - attacks by the PKK. The Kurdish point of view involves people killed by Turkish soldiers or village guards (riots, or perhaps this). I can find a better image if you'd like. Maybe we should invite a Turkish Kurd to the discussion and ask him. —Khoikhoi 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets not go racial or political. Certainly we do not invite a random iraqi arab and eask their opinion of the zarkawii page. You are however welcome to invite any neutral party, of course.
The above image is the picture of a school (building) named after a teacher killed by the PKK (according to the article) not his/her coffin. And, about that image, I do not believe even that picture is necesary (wikipedia is not a memorial).
Like I my earlier reccomendation, lets keep this article mostly as a list of incidents and number of dead, injured etc. Lets not turn it into a shocksite showcase.
--Cat out 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're trying to write an article called "Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict" without any Kurds invovled at all. I will ask Francis what his opinion is, however.
As for the coffin, I agree, my point is that we should have 2 images of both POVs. I don't get how an image of a coffin is considered shocksite material, were you refering to the behedding one? —Khoikhoi 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We should have an equal number of images representing each side of the conflict. - FrancisTyers · 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I reccomend a 0/0. since there is no reason to have images. Alternatively, I can jolt the web for tens of images of shot civilians by the PKK... Why do we have to go racial? What side is Tara Whelan on? --Cat out 21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
0/0 is fine by me. - FrancisTyers · 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

August 28th attack

I plan to remove this as its not an attack commited by the PKK and in fact claimed by another group that is merely linked or not. While it seems people believe they stem from the PKK, they are in fact not the PKK. The information is already in the Kurdish Freedom Hawks article as they have operated many times and no proven link to the PKK exists it seems. Even if linked they are still not the same group. Before anyone says it, I know people believe they just use that name when they want to attack civilians, but again notice articles about it state that its not a fact. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be in, as it is a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, but I added that it was done by the TAK. --Awiseman 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I found this page through the PKK page and was under the assumption it was covering only PKK related incidents since that is the only ones who are credited for most of them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I also added that the PKK condemned the bombing. - FrancisTyers · 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Mind converting those url citations to {{cite web}}? See: Starfleet ranks and insignia for examples. --Cat out 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Source on casualties

I removed the words killed by PKK militants from the second sentence of the article. What the source by the Washington Institute exactly says is It aims to push Turkey to free Ocalan, who is currently in prison in Turkey for his role in unleashing a terror campaign that has caused more than 30,000 deaths. so, Ocalan is the one who "opened the gates", of terror that has costed the lives of 30,000 civilians. PKK started the war, but these 30,000 people were not killed only by it. PKK militants still kill civilians in Turkey, but this cannot attributed to Ocalan. Moreover (and specifically for this article), the "unleashed a terror campaign" is still going on, but PKK is not to be blamed for all the victims. --Hectorian 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe we can talk about neutrality if one side is directly accused (turkish military and paramilitary organisations) and the other side (pkk) is not.
I also believe pkks official website is neither a neutral nor reliable source of information. Since the pkk (kongra-gel.com) cites the report of a frech ambasador, that report itself should be cited assuming such a report exists.
Furthermore, PKK on occasions have actualy been blamed for all the victims at the very least by the turkish government. The logic is in the sense that if the PKK did not exist (if civil disorder was not there) the Turkish government would not have had taken any action.
I do not particularly see why the lead is clutered with "Human Rights Watch" quotations nor wht is it too long. I also dislike images where they are as both are irrelevant to lead.
--Cat out 01:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that the official PKK website is neutral either... However, if the report of the french ambassador can be cited by independent source, should be mentioned instead. U are right when saying that we can't talk about neutrality if one side is directly accused (turkish military and paramilitary organisations) and the other side (pkk) is not, and i am sure that there are many neutral sources accusing directly PKK. I have no doubt that the turkish government blames PKK for all the victims, but the other side could rightfully say that it was the actions of the turkish government and army that "provoked" the civil disorder (or war or conflict) to break out and PKK to be created. U know, there are at least two rivals in each conflict... I disagree with u concerning the "Human Rights Watch" quotations, since 'human rights' play a prominent role (if not reason) in this dispute. However, i agree about the images. i think that the images serving the POV (somehow) or each side should either be removed (and replaced by neutral ones) or been placed in proposed paragraphs that would cover the way each side sees the victims: e.g. martyrs or heros for the kurdish side/ innocent victims for the turkish one. --Hectorian 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The lead is always on any article is for a general idea of the issue discussed throughout wikipedia. The "human rights" stuff can go to their own section. Its merely moved on the same page.
Furthermore certain people (most notably the ex-founder of Turkish Human Rights Organization (IHD)) have criticised the human rights organisations. This should also be in that section.
I do not know/care weather or not the images fail to meet NPOV but they can be simply removed for violating copyrights.
I do not believe we want paragraphs explaining martyrs, heros and other content which are inheritely biased. We are better of with presenting raw data: A side did B and C many people died.
--Cat out 03:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If a section concerning 'human rights' is about to be created, the whole mentioning of them in the lead can well be moved there. Criticism, by any side, can well be put in that section as well (having in mind that if we are about to add criticisms about Human Rights Organisations in this section-something on which i am not opposed to in general-we will be willing to add-or accept as just a different POV-such criticisms in other articles as well). If there is copyright violation, the images should be removed immediately according to WP rules. But if there are about to be kept, seperate sections may be needed. I am not sure if paragraphs concerning how each side sees the people killed, are necessary... I just made a proposal to reduce bias and POV in the lead, and honestly, i hardly know any name of any victim. However, since the Kurds do not see their militants as just 'casualties' and since the Turks do not see theirs as such, perhaps someone with deep knowledge on the issue could devote a couple of sentences for both. --Hectorian 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The related section of the November/December 2000 Foreign Affairs article by Eric Rouleau, the former Ambassador of France, which is available in full in the given link, is as follows;

"According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, in addition to the 35,000 people killed in military campaigns, 17,500 were assassinated between 1984, when the conflict began, and 1998. An additional 1000 people were reportedly assassinated in the first nine months of 1999. According to the Turkish press, the authors of these crimes, none of whom have been arrested, belong to groups of mercenaries working either directly or indirectly for the security agencies."

Another user had put the Kongra-Gel citation, therefore I had added that Kongra-Gel took Eric Rouleau as source. And a former ambassador writing in Foreign Affairs is a usually valid source, one can not deny that. He is also a cherished source in some circles. But I felt that the irony and the unlikeliness of the Ministry of Justice of Turkey confiding to Eric Rouleau that, "our militaries and paramilitaries killed 18,500 civilians" had to be added too. And according to the Turkish press! Which Turkish press, attributing which crimes? All of them? I thought the PKK had killed a number of civilians. The result is a terrible paragraph written by a μαλάκας:) You may also notice that he has not been very clear on his sources either. But what he wrote binds him, not anyone else. Otherwise I agree that the whole entry should be reshuffled. Either one independent and plausible source. Or, Turkish official figues, PKK figures, and an independent source. Regards! Cretanforever

I tend to believe that one, independent, source should be in the lead (concerning total casualties for all sides), and sources from the Turkish government and PKK been placed in another paragraph. Otherwise the leads turns out to be a POV-fork (which source is higher, which should be placed first, which is more valid or accurate, bla bla bla...). Eric Rouleau can well be a neutral and valid source to be placed in the lead, but i think that the objections of the turkish ministry of justice concerning him and his article should be placed as a footnote (so as not to present neither a turkish or kurdish view in the opening paragraph). I am not sure if the turkish (or whatever) media should be used as sources here... I mean, everyone has reasons to use the media for his own purposes, and i think that newspaper articles that contradict themselves (or other articles from the same newspaper!) are far not valid (if we are about to use newspaper articles as valid sources, then Iraq surely has "weapons of mass destruction":p). i agree that the author had a POV when editing and that the whole entry should be reshuffled... and i guess i know in which way u used the greek word:). (However, as a Greek who cannot claim to have mistaken its meaning, i cannot say the same:p). --Hectorian 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should any view be present. It was a 15+ year conflict (if we are going to focus strictly to pkks activity). You can leave it at that.
Newspaper articles are a valid secondary source, much credible than kongra-gel.org. And yes, as far as wikipedia articles are concerned there were WMDs in iraq until the whitehouse/pentagon announced otherwise and was covered accordingly to my knowlege. I would of course prefer primary sources, however, thats something I couldnt manage to find yet.
Furthermore just because a source is "independent" that neither automaticaly makes it impartial nor neutral.
  • The cited text above not only tells us that the 35,000 death toll was a result of military campaigns by Turkey but also increases the count by 17,500 18,500. I highly doubt a french ambasador would write a report that biased and instead something that is actualy diplomatic.
  • I also believe a french ambasador would write this in French and not English. If that is the case, we are looking at pkks translation and reinterpretations and not the original document.
The nature of any +15-year conflict will be complex. We really should be focusing on raw data here and let the details about the nature of the conflict and etc be explained in Kurdistan Workers Party
--Cat out 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is titled Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, and as far as I (and the whole world knows) this conflict is yet to come to an end. How can u say that It was a 15+ year conflict, while there are still clashes between Kurds and the Turkish army in SE Turkey and while bombs are still expoding in Turkish cities? Of course u added if we are going to focus strictly to pkks activity, but the title reveals that the article is not about PKK vs Turkish army. So, all the casualties should be presented until as recently as yesterday!(we all watch the news, u know...).
I do not mind the usage of secondary sources, but i do not like to see them presented before the primary. The French diplomate, no matter what some people may think, is an important source and by far more neutral than any turkish or kurdish source.
As far as i am concern, i have not read his article, apart from the extract that Creatanforever presented above, and i have no reason to believe that he lied... Don't be surprised if the French ambassador wrote in english... I bet he knows english and since Foreign Affairs is an american journal, he used that language.
About your last comment, maybe the nature of the conflict up to 1998 should be presented there. However, as i said in the beginning of this edit of mine, this is not an article about PKK only. Regards --Hectorian 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert on this topic so I will only comment on what I do know. I added two more bombings that were attributed to the TAK as they are often cited as seperate or possibly seperate from the PKK. I credited them in the appropriate place if they took credit or cited it as they are believed to be behind XYZ attack. I hope that helps a little and will attempt to add more as I gain sources on those incidents specifically. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as i am concern, i've no idea if TAK is linked in any way to PKK or not. but since they are both kurdish organisations, the attacks they both made/make should be listed here. --Hectorian 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You can read some of the sources on the TAK page, it seems noone really is. The popular theory is they splintered off when they felt the PKK's tactics were not what they wanted. They have since commited and taken account for their own attacks and the PKK denies controlling or funding them. What I keep reading is that they are believed to be linked by some, believed to be the same by the Turkish authorities and believed to be splinter group by security experts. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PKK terror

my english isn´t very well i am sorry but its wrong to say that this terror group killed so many people the actually general of TSK (turkish army) killed many civilians in the 90´s and when you look at his comments actually you can see that the turkish army killed people who were neutral few week ago a commandant say that he threw with granates to civilians and that he be able to make this again both sides made mistakes Thanks


--yes.yes.Turkish Armed Forces is the terrorist group not PKK.PKK is a bunch of freedom fighters!What the hell are we talking about.PKK have killed 30000 people -both turks and kurds- so far.And still murdering.And you are talking about turkish armed forces' killings.oh god.--Fenasi Kerim 19:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE

It would greatly help the cleanliness of the references section if we can work to convert the references to the proper cite web and cite news formats. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the links and found most of the sources are not in english, is it possible to find english equivalents of these articles as that is the proper method on the english wikipedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Diyarbakir attack clarification

What does the line "(4 children include their mother and aunt total 6 children)" mean? 11 people were killed total, does this mean 4 or 6 children were killed? --Awiseman 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Awiseman, sorry to confuse you, yes total 6 childeren were killed, I was also trying to explain 4 of the six childeren killed with their mother and aunt. Hope this helps.

PKK members are terrorists not rebels

PKK members are terrorists not rebels nor militias, so I replaced parts "PKK rebels", "PKK members", etc. with "PKK militants" in the article.--Micrain 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "rebels" and "members"? For example, the BBC has an article titled, Kurdish rebels declare ceasefire. Also, there's nothing POV about "members". If someone belongs to the PKK, they are a member of it. Khoikhoi 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECasualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict_Archive_1_12f2.html"