Talk:Kurdistan Workers Party/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

untittled

This article does not seem to be even remotely neutral. It violates wiki NPV policy since it sounds like Turkish government propaganda.

Here are some websites that give neutral or competing viewpoints:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/pkk.htm

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=20

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/kurd-a26.shtml

-Ikariotis

PKK's targets were not just Kurdish origin Turkish citizens, but also Turkish citizens who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (bombings), foreign tourists who bring foreign currency, army officials, government officials like teachers, technicians, road workers and many more. In addition to these from time to time PKK had destroyed machinery used by workers to open the road during the winter, burned schools and even threatened the national newspapers' distribution on the south east region. At one time PKK started to bomb buses which travel from city to another city. These are not claimes by the government, they are known facts. Anybody who study PKK had to know what happened. Trying to present these facts as claims are more like rewriting the history.

Forcefull migrations from villages were individual events and they were quite few. It has never been in widespread as the article claims. In those years and still, there have been always migration from villages to bigger cities. Look at urbanization statistics in Turkey. The Iraq-Iran war, as well as the first and second gulf war hit the economy of the region. In addition to these PKK/KADEK prevented government from improving the economy of the region through bombings, killings, kidnappings and more. Even many government officials couldn't do their jobs, such as teachers. In the end, the region become very poor and started to migrate voluntarily to bigger cities and west. Forceful migrations which seem to be facts are individual events, happened because of some local army officiers' decisions, and had been revised by the government recently. The number, half million, has never been true. There is also an isolated incident where PKK had forced one or two villages to north Iraq for propaganda reasons. Their numbers were approximately 2000-3000 people. Anybody who put an exaggarated number without any reasoning or any real evidence is simply doing harm to wikipedia and destroying the truth.

Is Abdullah for or against the Kurds? This article contradicts the Abdullah Ocalan article.

Is this anywhere close to NPOV? This reads like bald-faced Turkish propaganda... One might do well to include the fact that Ocalan was begging for his life because Turkey was probably torturing him like nobody's business, as well as the fact that the Turkish state is by no means innocent of (apparently one-sided) attrocities committed against civilians. Much editing needed!

A start for pro-PKK info: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/PKK/pkk.html

Graft

The fact that... probably? C'mon, Graft, you can do better than that :-) --Uncle Ed

Hey, this is the talk page - no NPOV here! Anyway, I don't think I'm that far off the mark, if a bit baldly stated. I don't advocate including it like I wrote, but I'm just trying to indicate the absurdity of the article as written. Graft

The first versions of these articles were a little biased.

Maybe I've been reading too much Chomsky, but I just commented out a lot of stuff which I thought to be rather biased. I left it in there so that someone can rewrite the stuff in such a way that it is clear that this is the vision of the Turkish government (or at least part of the Turkish government). -- Guaka 00:33 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The name changes are a bit of a puzzle. The group itself has said each time that the old organisation has been disbanded and a new one formed, giving:

Shoud they be separate articles or combined into one? ( 10:46, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

the [[PKK} article says:

Since 1978 the PKK has been led by Abdullah Ocalan, with its terrorist activities mainly directed towards the kurdish citizens of Turkey.

The condition of the imprisonment

The author of that summary section had many facts wrong and clearly attempts to make some propaganda. For example, the author specifies the condition of the prison and tries to make Ocalan look poor, helpless and try to make the readers pity him and accuses the government of Turkey.

The reality is that, he has to put forward some information regarding the laws of that country regarding prison and prisoners. In Turkey, as in all other countries, prisoners live in cells. Their allowed weekly visits depend on their crime, just like in other countries. For example, you can't visit any prisoner in the world any time you want. There are certain rules associated with the type of the prison and more. The author clearly neglects this and writes the article with false information and he/she doesn't put forward anything regarding the difference or whether the laws have been neglected in the case of Ocalan.

Because of the special condition of Ocalan, unlike the impression the author tried to give, Ocalan's condition is one of the best in Turkey. Not only he has access to the best medical facilities, but also his cell is one of the most comfortable cells in the whole world, because he is alone in the cell and his space is large.

The author tries to attribute the health problems of Ocalan (over 55), who had health problems before his capture, to the prison without any clear evidence or any reason.

I personaly think he is too confortable. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CopyVio

I have reverted to an old version prior to this edit which introduced material copied from here [1].

If there is some reason why we have the right to copy that then please state it clearly. The material is marked as "All Rights Reserved" [2].

I restored all of the subsequent edits outside that section. Possibly summarising the material from that source rather than copying would be valuable. Mozzerati 16:14, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

News article, 28 November 2004

"H. Ertas, a Turkish editor of the Open Directory Project has been sentenced to 10 months in prison after being found guilty of editing a category about the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)."

Turkish millitay did not murder civilians

Look, I dont know exactly what happened to every 30,000 people. I know for a fact that there had been hudereds of terrorist raids to villiges to slaughter the people that does not support. I dont see why my first line was removed. This wikipedia article is a terrorist propoganda and that should not be allowed. The PKK has been declared a terrorist organisation by the EU (includes Britain, yes) and the US. Do you want me to elaborate any spesific point. I did not delete a lot on this article aside from non working links. Abdulah Ocalan was a terrorist at best. Please dont proficise him he was no good to anybody, not even himself.

The group did "disband" and same people formed a new one. it should be one article in my opinion. It was their atempt to evade the EU and US sanctions. Didnt work to well. They are still refered as the PKK.

I can include a link of their handy work though I am not sure if thats aproporate.

I will edit the article more in detail later once we sort this mess.

Comment by User:138.16.16.231

Moved from article page -- Mgm|(talk) 08:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Note to Wikipedia: this article makes no reference at all to the violent Turkish repression of Kurdish efforts at self-determination in large sections of present-day Turkey that are overwhelmingly inhabited by Kurds. While it is true that the PKK is a terrorist organization, the violently ascerbic tone of this article and the fact that it only tells one half of the story mark it out as biased.

Note: This comment was made before the latest version of this article (just an edited version of the previous article) was protected from editing.

Answered User:138.16.16.231

Your baseless alogations are interesting since there is no statistic declaring Kurds presentation overwhelming, nor are Kurds remotely discriminated. They claim to be discriminated, I saw no evidence of it in a life time. Kurds Turks and others use the same fountains, they can elect their leaders and be elected, hell there was a Kurdish President, even Americans dont have a Latino or Black President. Kurds I met dont want a free Kurdish state, or a sub state. The platform such demands is not Wikipedia, it is the parliment of the nation in question. If you call senseless killing "self-determination" I rest my case. My article is based on my life time experience and various unclassified or declassified reports just search the internet. Terrorist organisations like the [PKK]] or November 17 often use internet as a propoganda tool. A kurdish state may only trigger a midle eastern war or WW3 according to military analysts and I am curious why such edits to articles like this one Kurds, Kurdistan and other Kurd related conterversial topics is done by Anonymous people which always use internet cafe? --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried to improve the English a bit. In the process, I noticed what seems to be strong pro-Turkish bias in the article. Someone should deal with that, but I'm not the one. Everyking 07:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER (User 138.16.16.231)

Before you call my allegations baseless, take a look at Wikipedia's own article on * Kurdistan *, which has links to all sorts of information that confirms that southeastern Turkey is ethnically and historically a Kurdish, not a Turkish region (as is Northern Iraq, the very northeastern corner of Syria and a few provinces of Iran, including Kordestan Province). There are 14 million Kurds under Turkish rule in northwestern Kurdistan (Southeast Turkey). While the PKK commit terrorist acts, it is also estimated that 20,000 Kurds died as a result of the Turkish Army's "pacification" of northwest Kurdistan, which did not end until very recently (1990s). And you claim that the Kurds are "not at all repressed", even though their language was outlawed in Turkey until 1993, and agitating for Kurdish independence is still considered grounds for arrest by the Turkish Authorities. While I understand that you have a strong bias based on a "lifetime of experience," this is an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit.

Mostly, I do not understand why Wikipedia allows Turkish Nationalists to come in and keep editing this page to make it biased. Is there some sort of way to make an appeal to Wikipedia authorities to restore this page to an unbiased form and protect it from editing?

PS.

I wrote a new (short) version of this article that to me seems neutral, for it discusses both the grievances of Kurds under Turkish rule and the fact that the PKK has been listed as a terrorist organization by the EU (which I consider to be the most objective condemnation of the organization). However, it is my guess that "CoolCat" will return to revert this page back to its Pro-Turkish form. I entirely don't care enough about this issue to get into a "revert war" with CoolCat. Unlike him, I haven't spent my lifetime in Northwest Kurdistan and don't have any axes to grind, I just wanted other people to have accurate information on the Kurdish independence issue (which CoolCat doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of).

I've looked into the Wikipedia Arbitration process, and it seems like Wikipedia puts 99% of its faith in just community-based policing which, needless to say, doesn't seem to be working for this PKK article, at least insofar as the version of this article that keeps reappearing blatantly contradicts objective information in other articles, such as the article on Kurdistan. I will continue this matter no further. If "CoolCat" comes back and reverts my edits, then ultimately only Wikipedia will suffer for having a biased article.

  • Its not biased, you are. I will not acknowlege the PKK propoganda, no. PKK is a terrorist organisation regardless of who says what according to NATO,EU,US and lots of other international organisations. If you revert my edits by destroying all data, I will rever it back. I and wikipedia has 0 tollerance to propoganda. You refer to the place as Kurdistan, rest of the planet as Turkey. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If necesary Please tune strong words down for me, also inform me

In my opinion this article is neutral, some people disagree with that, they never bothered telling me but I see all these items on various user pages. This article is based on my experiences with the organisation, intelligence data from various organisations, as well as what the organisation claimed responsibilty for. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, are you telling that you can't even see POV in what you wrote? And why don't you as well note that most of the 30,000 victims were Kurds who felt victim of the governments oppressive and severe answer to the PKK, which as well led to the destruction of over 3000 Kurdish villages and over 2 million "relocated?" Under the pretext to fight the PKK, but was obviously meant to mix the Kurdish population with the Turks to dilute the independence movement?
There is much to say about this, but right now I have no real interest in doing that, but you seem to be satisfied here to exclude important and relevent informations which leads people to be mislead by the information they read, because nowhere it is indicated in the article anything about the Turkey militaristic regime and its answer under the pretext of fighting against the PKK, and why the PKK that was first a working party reverted in becoming more active in fighting.
Why don't you say anything about the fight to get the Kurdish language legalized, when until 1991 was "illegal." You see there are many POV in many other ways, including the Kurdish entry and the rest of the articles you have POVized under the pretext of neutralizing them. Fadix 21:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because, Article is about PKK not KURDS or KURDISH LANGUAGE, what you call propoganda is what the organisation claimed resposibility. You say Turkish Goverment massacred Kurds? Whats this with you acusing Turkey with massacres on every Article posible? My info is based on CIA, FBI, MIT and various other organisations. This is widely accepted and this organisation is acknowleged by Most of western states and also lots of other states. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where did I accuse the government of massacres? The government abused its military power, and this is as well recognized by most countries. It led to the destruction of over 3000 villages and the "relocation" of more than 2 million Kurds, and this should be part of the article because it is linked with the PKK. Another thing, your article is misleading, 30,000 losses were mostly Kurds, and non-PKK, and countless numbers of them have died by the military abuses in invading and destroying villages by prext of destroying PKK hidding places. Fadix 15:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason Kurdish was banned because of PKK, I dont know the logic of the goverment of the time as I was not involved with the country at the time. The Propoganda from baseless PKK claims were replaced with official data from various organisations. In turkey there is no sich thing as a Kurdish villige as Racial/Ethnic statistics are not done. Everyone is asumed majority and they had a Kurdish president while I was around. I think it was during the Gulf war. The PKK's doctrine was communist originaly. they changed it over time, The organisation was mostly based on senseless violence. I was among the foreign enginners they abducted, I was helping the construction of a dam, the GAP project. I cant tell you more. We were 3 people when we were forced out, only one person was left to tell the story. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kurdish was not banned because of the PKK, the banning of Kurdish was a continuation of the Turkification regime, the Kurds had no right for their schools teaching them Kudish, their Mosques etc. this is unrelated with the PKK. As for the village statistics, you are wrong, those records of villages destroyed commes from many credible organization, and there was many Kurdish villages(yes Kurdish) before the army "relocated" over 2 million people. Fadix 15:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not allow eidts that is insultive towards Kurds by misguided people as well. See my reverts on articles like Kurds

The article about Kurds contain many unrelated things to equate them as PKK and lack of many other points... there are informations that have yet to be confirmed but are presented as truth. There are no evidences of Armenias support, while Grece over the past hasn't denied it, the evidences of Armenia supports are only speculative comming from Turkish government foreign ministry propagandas. More so, when the PKK claims as Kurdish what the Armenians consider historic Armenia. So again, here another of your misleading informations among many others.

Should I put "3000 Kurdish villiges, Turkish millitaryt kjilled em all you are right oh my god, Kurds had every right to shoot 2 of my friends building a dam so they can have better irrigation. Kurds are great, Armenians are great, Turks are the most pathetic race that has ever existed. All of them should be shot on sight." instead? Errrr right. What is the basis of your data, "widely accepted" is not factual. Anyhing you suggest happens to be widely accepted ny most scholars. The information I provided is based on official data from neutral sources. You are refering to PKK propaganda abroad. Your level of hatred towards Turks is greatly affecting your Judgement. You cannot declare it as POV when it is not. They did blow themselves up. You are disputing that? they were a and still is a terrorist organisation, are you disputing that? Exactly what are you disputing? This article is about PKK and PKK only, PKK is bad. This article shows what they are. This is the things PKK acknowleged doing. Turkey abuses its millitary to massacre people on every opertunity! If you read the turkish constitution prior to 1980 you will see that Kurdish was not illegal. It wasnt legal either, there was no mention of it as goverment did not interfere with civil liberties of people. Besides, if kurds want to speak their language no one will arrest them for that reason. Now if they talk about anto goverment plans or burn turkish flags, the goverment is not so hot about them. No nation likes large groups of people talking about anti-goverment propoganda. The article is not POV oriented but I will dispute neutrality untill you are satisfied. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Your article is not neutral, and stop this “Kurds” did this or that, or bring the “race” term here and there. The source of 3000 villages destroyed? Well, one of those is a very credible State Department report. You present one point of view for articles, when you like the point of view, but when on the other hand, you don't like something you want it to be presented 50-50. All the articles in which you have seriously participated involving Turkey, which I have viewed, contains some form of POV, ranging from minor(still existing though) to major. And this entry is an example.

http://www.kevinmckiernan.com/Op_ed_BostonGlobe.html

Here a neutral article, and there are many, most Western sources condemn the Turkish army insurrections by pretext of fighting against the PKK.

Here another article.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma99mckiernan

There are bunch of works, bunch of references, the cases of the Kurds in Turkey has even been presented by an international War Crime and Genocide panel conference.

This has nothing to do with “Armenians are good,” “Kurds are good,” “Turks are bad.” And I repeat, this is the sort of mentality you have that give you away. This is about presenting a neutral article and not using Wikipedia as propaganda, and the article here as it is, as well as the Kurdish entry and many others are highly one sided and are POV. I don't care about whatever it is about the Turks or not, after viewing many articles in Wikipedia, I have seen many non-neutral articles, and I want to participate in their neutralization, but right now, since you get involved in the genocide entry, I have decided to view what you've been doing under the pretext of neutralizing articles, and it just doesn't smell good. And everytime I seriously question your neutrality, you start this sarcasm.

You tell me that it wasn't illegal before 1980. OK then, name me any Kurdish schools before 1980, or any Mosques in Kurdish language. Go ahead, provide me some, was it not permitted before 1980 afteral? Fadix 19:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...

  • Do what you think is neutral to the article, rewrite my edits, add material, try not to remove things as it had taken me a very long time to write this. I'll review what you got.

First:

  • I dispute the neutrality of any article using the word kurdistan to refer to the region. The world refers to it as Soulthern Turkey, Northern Middle east, Asia minor, etc. Only Kurdish seperatists (not contraversial) refer it as Kurdistan. The Land of the Kurds.

Seccond:

  • Gunships and aircraft are useless on most of the mountains the malitia operates, mountains are too high and targets are invisible during winter time. Not even heat sensor work (hence winter) unlike what article suggests.
  • PKK died down in 1999 an article dating January 13, 2001 is 2 years after the organisation and Turkish military operations halted.
  • Turkey sits in the middle of Euro-asia geographicaly. Turkey borders Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Close proximity tu Russia, Libya. Turkey has its sizable army due to the threat. Not as a tool to torture relocate move its own citizens. Also keep in mind of HOT relations with Greece, Turkey had a mini-cold war with Greece. And even the US was bothered when greece got S-300 missles for example, quoting a US ranger in Planing-OPs. There was an arms race, not related to PKK, It started long before PKK.
  • Iran is known to fund groups like Hezbollah and other Religious Fanatics, These groups also register as "Terrorist" on us list of terrorist organisations.
  • Iraq assisted PKK before the Iran-Iraq war, kurds sided with Iranians and the result is well known.
  • Syria harbored Ocalan in a palace, a war almost broke out. They forced him away and he bounced around untill he landed on Kenya.
  • The Turkish border between Syria, Iraq, Iran is very mountainious, very hard to enforce. These organisations often used Armenia as a bridge to pass from Iran to Turkey.
  • The organisation started with a "comunist" ideology, got a good chunk of money from the USSR
  • Your average Kurdsh vilige is a smoke town made out of a few small houses. I do not see why one would bother bombing them. That is like bombing a cammle with a cruse missle. Article suggests a massacre, if that were the case, with 100+ Gunships I do not believe a single Kurd would be alive today. 100 helicopters * 200 bullets = 20,000 rounds. AT rounds.
  • Do you know why was there an establishment of "Town Guards"?
  • Do you know why the goverment forcibly moved some people off the region, the move was not based on ethnicit but based on how "red" the region was. It was either goverment moved them or whatch them die.
  • Other article dates "March/April 1999" PKK was dead a few months ago after Capture of Ocalan. The dating of the article is after the death of PKK.
  • When people leave their places these places are rendered useless due to the mountain mallitia.
  • Turkish military has compulsary millitary service, nothing discreate can be done as general populution is a part of the millitary.
  • Turgut Ozal requested the Armed town guards, it was his doing. Millitary was not pleased with the idea as the weapons handed over ended up in PKK hands rather easily. Turgut Ozal had kurdish ties. He has the power to oppose any bill.
  • "Kurdish TV and radio are still illegal in Turkey". the only reason they became Illegal as any/all Kurdish TV was anti-Turkey propoganda. Publicaly burning Turkish flags also is a poor way to win public support. There is a parliment. Kurds are in it. They had a Kurdish preisdent. Who allowed kurds during the Gulf war to flee into the country so that Iraqi army do not "gas" them as there is a video footage I dont think thats discussable.
  • We do not base our knowlege on wikipedia on a few articles written by random people, it is also questionable the person who wrote the article is the person who claimed to have written it.
  • You are welcome to fix things in the article here and there just dont delete sections, if you really think significant work needs to be done, comment it out by using <!-- --> . I seriously suggest you work on articles that are not contraversial forst to learn the wormat of various wikipedia control codes. Also it will show you the right way to change things you disagree with. Deleting them is bad, commenting out, rewriting is good. (This of course does not include stuff like Vandalism which you are more then welcome to revert)

--Cool Cat My Talk 21:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"After World War I, Kurds hoped to create a homeland from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire, but those dreams vanished with the birth of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Riding a wave of nationalism, Mustafa Kemal--known as Ataturk, "the Father of the Turks"--imposed a single identity on the multicultural population of Turkmans, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, and others. Most minorities were forcibly assimilated; everyone became a Turk. (The Kurds were called "Mountain Turks" until after the Gulf War in 1991.) "

I fail to see whats wrong with a dosage of nationalism, this way people are not discriminated. They are welcome to practice their culture. They are not welcome to burn Turkish flags. They do not have the right to kill goverent employees. Only groups who blow themselves up are hated. Not the racial/ethnic group although human nature tends to hate the "potentialy lethal" group. Hatred towards kurds was not the case, people would not know them as a race/ethnic gorup. This was fabricated by PKKs actions. I am not claiming Kurds are bad in this article, I am suggesting PKK is bad. People who claim PKK is good needs to tell me why. I cant accept statistics generated by groups who did not even held a survey in Turkey, their estimations are based of of other estimations which is fine but the factuality is off. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also if you asked/ask a "kurd" what language they are speaking unless they have political bias, they will respond to you with a word that is very different from "Kurdi" which is the "political" term fabricated. The language of Kurdish has 4 dialects that cant comunicate with each other, implying them being uneque languages on their own according to some scholars. So Kurdish is not an acurate referance in my opinion when I talked to kurds that was my impression. If you declare my life experiences goverment propoganda I will be very @_@sized --Cool Cat My Talk 23:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Product

Please provide evidence that all the mentioned consequences in the "the product" section, are solid and neutral facts. If you can't do that, then that section will not be included. Stereotek 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I prefer a non revert world. Please ask me things instead of reverting. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting you to show me that Kurdish was not illegal before the PKK... and if it wasn't of the Kurdish movement, in 1991, there would have been no legalization of their language? And I don't care if there are different dialects or not. You literaly lied about the language being legal. Taner Akcam yesterday has read one article in the Turkish Penal Code that was present before the PKK even existed, which say that there is no Kurds in Turkey, they are Turks. Fadix 15:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes the basis of Turkish law is based on asuming everyone is a Turk. Its one way of doing things, minorities did not have special rights. Language was legal. It was a distant-Turish dialect, classifiying as "Kurdish" bothered some people. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I think the answer is the PKK. This is a terrorist organization which is on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. It has been active since the early 1980s. Today, the PKK has about 5000 militants in northern Iraq. In the past, it has launched many very bloody attacks from northern Iraq into Turkey, and so there is a fear that the PKK's presence in northern Iraq is a continuing threat to Turkey and this was also the perception back in the winter. The PKK's violence, just to put it into perspective, has cost Turkey since the early 1980s about 30,000 casualties. I would suggest that the pains that the PKK has created in Turkey are similar to the trauma of the September 11 terrorist attacks here and this is why I think Turkey's long fight against terrorism has created a deep distrust in Turkey toward both PKK as well as Kurdish nationalism."

Supporting Material

I only picked .gov adresses that are non .tr

  • http://commdocs.house.gov Supports death toll
  • http://usinfo.state.gov Supports death toll
  • http://www.usdoj.gov Supports death toll
  • www.cia.gov Supports death toll
  • $200,000,000,000 - Goverment figures of Turkey, I cant give you a non Turkish fiscal statistics it would be based on what Turkey declares anyways.
  • PKK sabotaged GAP by shooting engineers. And if Turkeys cliams regarding the fiscal statistics are %50 accurate That is enough to complete the GAP.
The English-speaking reader has to take your judgement on this question on good faith. Many readers will be amazed and sceptical given (a) that the Turkish state's annual budget (for one yardstick) is less than $70bn [3], (b) the failure to specify the year of the dollar value employed, and (c) the suspiciously vague round number. I'm amending the article to say 'according to the Turkish government', or else wikipedia is confirming the Turkish government's claim, which would not be NPOV. Wikipedia should only make a claim like this if the research is referenced and indisputable. Adhib 14:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • True, The numbers are the toll of all the damage done by the organisation. It includes the amout of damage done by the pkk, amount of $$$ used to stop pkk... etc... etc... --Cool Cat My Talk 07:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kurds did lost a lot of credibility, in the past organisation had a lot of support in Europe, today that is not the case. There are less and less rallies in Europe anyways.
  • Before PKK Kurds were "mountain Turks" and were a part of the majority. Now they are not as liked. Its a cultural and logical fact. If you blow things up, people dont like you. Google or something.
  • www.state.gov Until recent years the "Kurdish Problem" was a reason not to admit Turkey into the EU. Using google to highlight



I can support my cases further but sources will have to rely on .tr sources as an internal issue like this was not analized by foreign goverments. I dont like relying on civilian sites.

  • The claim that "Kurds have lost most of their international credibility." is ridicules.. and the "evidence" that you use to support it is even worse: "..If you blow things up, people dont like you..." It's just not good enough for Wikipedia..
  • About the 200 USD billion extra debt: you must provide a neutral source, that support and mention your claim: That PKK's struggle is the reason behind the 200 USD billion extra debt.
  • GAP project: Your claim that PKK shot engineers working on the GAP Project, doesn't prove your claim that the hostilities are the reason why the GAP Project is incomplete. Again, I need a neutral (not a Turkish government source) that support exactly that claim.
  • European Union: The problem with the Kurds are one of the reasons why Turkey is not an EU member. There are many others, and properly much more important reasons why Turkey is not an EU member (and most likely never will be): Economic differences, cultural differences, religious differences and a strong rejection of the idea among large parts of the populations in the 'old' EU countries. To blame only PKK's struggle is unreasonale and POV.
  • Death tool: Seems to be well-documented, but it doesn't need it's own section. Maybe you could mention this figure in the lead section, with a source attached?
  • Turkish government sources: We can't use only Turkish government to support a whole section in the article. It this case they can, for obvious reasons, not be considered neutral.

Stereotek 13:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I do not have other sources, nor there are any (that I can see), this is an internal country issue.

  • More people are incluned to listen to the Kurds these days. More of their activities are declared illegal, I do nnot have time to hunt down for news articles for you, if you arent up to date, you should start being.
  • The number is what the Turkish goverment estimates as the financial cost of the semi-civil war. That includes, #of Building blown up, number of guns fired number of helicopters destroyed, etc...
  • I know 2 engineers were shot in front of my very eyes, I do not know what you know about how a dam is built but when engieneers are not around there is no progress.
  • Turkey is denied EU membership because of a number of reasons and one used to be the "Kurdish Problem". I beg to differ on your belief, Turkey will either end up in the EU or will be an Iran like state. If Turkey was in the EU european commerce would be in middle east, preaty much easing hostilities. It would also help countries like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan which are traped where they are.
  • As you wish, modifying.
  • Please do not remove the material, you are welcome to comment out and find any material to suggests that its different elsewhere. The numbers are based on Turkish data because that is the only data I got. I could not find any detailed profile page based on .gov domains. The links support article as a whole. This will be one of the firts to aproach the issue neutrally

--Cool Cat My Talk 20:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove my work. you are welcome to comment it out and make suggestions. it would make my live expodentialy easier if you JUST comment it out so I can re-word rephrase things. I had placed a lot of work into this article. You are welcome to discuss. But please comment out instead of deleting.

Coolcat, if you can't find any neutral sources that directly support the controversial claims in the "product" section, then that section can't stay. The Turkish government is as mentioned not a neutral source. About Turkey in the EU: We are not really discussing if it's a good idea or not, are we? I don't think that issue should be discussed in the article eighter. It doesn't belong there.

Stereotek 08:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure it can as long as you dont vandalise the article, it is an internal issue, and since there are no other sources avalible thats what you have to live with. Turkish goverment is your neutral source, I will not whatch bits and peices of this article deteriate due to "POV" concerns. EU belongs there, unless you are knowlegable of the issue you know how relevant it is. I cannot provide you neutral information regarding the financial spending of the US either. Its always what US tells. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish government is not a neutral source, because it is a part of the conflict. If you can't find a descent source that support your highly POV claims, then they will be removed. Stereotek 16:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your lies about "personal attacks" in the edit summary doesn't help you eighter. When and where did I make a personal attack against you? Please stop, your insulting attacks against me! Stereotek 16:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Stereotek's revert because it seemed to be a simple matter of tit-for-tat reverting; no real reason was given for his or her deletion of the section in question, which clearly states that the figures come from the Turkish government, and talks about what would be the case if they were correct. I can't see that that is at all PoV. I've rewritten the section, however, both in terms of the English, and in terms of the emphasis given to the proviso concerning the figures. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you know was that so hard to rewrite instead of reverting Stereotek. I urge you to read the following:

  • Stick to good Wikiquette
  • Work towards consensus (ie not simple revert, comment out etc. but refrain from reverting)
  • Respect the right of others to hold their views. This does not mean that you have to agree with them, but just agree to disagree.
  • Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
  • Be tolerant of others views, even if you disagree with them. You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe. This may even be true, but Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a "single correct version of the truth."

I did not say you were attacking but your lack of Wikiquette implies that. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The section is obviously much better now that it is rewritten. I still got a problem with the following though: "Analysts point out that, if the figures are acurate, this sum would be more than enough to complete the GAP project". Who are these "analysts"? And when and where did they point this out? In my opinion we really need to mention a source for this information. Coolcat: Please spare me for your personal attacks and insinuations. Stereotek 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, identifying the analysts would be good. Perhaps a link, or a print reference? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actualy, the real problem with this entry, is more with what there is "not" than what is "in." Neutrality is presenting the arguments, not supressing them.
http://www.kurd.org/Zagros/statedp.html
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/turkey_background_kurds.htm
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/KO%20News/27-10-03-kurds-finally-speak-tky.html
Over the web, there are many links and articles... the PKK nationalism errupted for a reason. Fadix 16:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPoV and external links

The NPoV policy is not about suppressing points of view, but about representing all genuine and significant points of view fairly. Moreover, external links do not have to be NPoV — that makes little sense, in fact. When an article deals with a controversy, it should represent all sides, and provide external links to relevant (PoV) sites.

If there's a genuine reason for deleting the links, could it be stated here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. NPOV not about suppressing any significant point of view, and in this article both sides of the discussion should obviously be presented in the external links section. But with this in mind, why did you just delete all the external links to pages that support the PKK POV (except the 'Freedom for Abdullah Öcalan' page)? I almost think, that it might have been a mistake? Anyway my reason for deleting the two links..

..is that I consider both sites to be of extremely low quality, and not suitable for any serious Encyclopedia. As another editor mentioned on the Abdullah Öcalan talk page when discussing these two external links"...in encyclopedia people expect insight on conflict background more than pictures of mutilated bodies." [4]

It was of course never my intention to delete all links with descent and suitable criticism of the PKK, and I didn't do that in my last edit: [5]

All the pages with more suitable criticism was still there. Stereotek 15:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for deleting your links — but your edit summary didn't mention them, and the reason you gave for deleting the links was that they were PoV, with no mention of their quality. As for quality, what exactly is your objection? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also apologize, I should have used the talk page from the beginning and explained my actions. Anyway, the reason I consider the above links to be of low quality and not suitable for this article, is that I can't see how they add anything to the readers understanding of the conflict/PKK. The links just present the user to a lot of dead bodies without any real explanation. So what is the point? I can't see it. Also, I don't think you would find such external links at other serious the Encyclopedias that Wikipedia compete with. In my opinion we should only link to serious sites with real criticism, that add to something to the users understanding of the conflict or the different POVs regarding the PKK/conflict. Stereotek 16:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just replaced your additions (you'd better check to make sure that I've done it properly). I agree with you about the two links, and think that they do indeed need to be removed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now if you want to provide me why they went on their killing spree, I need relyable sources. Kurdish propoganda has a lot of ridiclous claims, like gunships. Gunships are useless against PKK, a goverment exterimination plan against the kurds is very far fetched, forced evaxuations are normal. You move people away so they dont die, interpreteing it as any way else is also far fetched. Now, I needn't remind you that you should not confuse PKK with "Kurdish independence movement", which in my personal opinion is a waiste of time, but to be fair I keep my personal views off of wikipedia, at least from actual articles. PKK was more senseless killing than anything. I am not telling this, us navy site is telling you this. If you want to put the views of PKK in the article, their reasoning... you should do it very carefully, preferably in their own section. See: Al-Qaeda --Cool Cat My Talk 07:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot allow PKK's main web page on this article, that is like putting Al-Qaeda's main web page, which likely is no longer there after CIA is done with it. --Cool Cat My Talk 07:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you "can allow". NPoV has been restored in the external links. The pathetic snuff links that you are pushing, has also been removed. This is a serious encyclopedia. Stereotek 08:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I commented material out, keep it that way untill we are done discussing. --Cool Cat My Talk

Cool Cat, you might have thought that you had only commented material out, but you had in fact deleted some. I don't understand your objection to including the link to the PKK site; NPoV demands that every significant PoV be represented neutrally, and certainly allows PoV links. The links to photographs of dead bodies, on the other hand, don't really do anything. We need to discuss these things properly (and Stereotek, language like 'The pathetic snuff links that you are pushing' doesn't help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mel. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, do we have a link to alquadas web site on sep 11th page? If you relly want to keep the links the wording is definately incorrect. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've removed the links again. If there is any article which should have links to these websites, it is this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool Cat, don't just state that the wording is incorrect — tell us why, and what you think should replace it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed a link and explained it. Freedom for ocalan is not party ideology related. Its not contributing to the material in any way. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish you didnt revert, isntead comnent out and rewrite. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also I am wondering one thing, why is it that PKK gets External links? --Cool Cat My Talk 12:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

You are welcome to rewrite material. You are not welcome to remove material. You are not welcome to waiste my time either. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Facts

If possible, please put any disputed fact below. Please keep this at sentence or phrase level, sources should be listed for the facts and comments indented. This should include facts from all points of view. Comments about inpartial or irrelevant sources should be indented below the source in question. The particular quote should be put in italic after the citation. I hope this improves the discussion in the article. Further note: try not to site sources with "kurd" or "turk" in the URL, it'll just cause trouble. - FrancisTyers 02:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I wont allow this article to Turn into pkk propoganda. I wrote facts. Neither sides point of view should be present in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaving this one in. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial and NPOV. If you wrote facts, please cite sources. - FrancisTyers 14:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should visit external links. And read WP:NPOV as well. I DID cite sources. Infact some material is from the web sites I provided. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please do not turn this list into just a "please quote your sources list". I'll leave your comments in for now in the interests of being reasonable. But where I have requested a source, please add it in the format I've requested. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

List

1. The organisation raised funds from illegal drugs trade in the past and still raises funds in Europe.

This is a solid fact at least according to US intelligence.
If its a solid fact, please cite your sources - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

3. Illegal immigration was one of the few occasions where the Urban PKK cells cooperated with each other.

Well known fact, at least according to US intelligence. Nothing is disputed here. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

4. They often "infiltrated" small remote villages; if they failed to win support, people in the village were slaughtered, either to punish the non-supporters and force who was left to support the organisation (or face death) or by blaming the Turkish Military.

Well known fact, no dispute here. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

5. The evacuation have caused significant problems in the cities where the evacuees resettled (mostly larger metropolitan cities). The infrastructure had more people than it can handle.

Well known fact, no dispute here. Istanbul and Ankara both had issues regarding power and water distribution as well as lack of jobs to the overwhelming number of newcomers. Etc.. etc... --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

6. These mines are of Italian and Russian origin.

Mines were of Italian and/or russian manifacture. "Made in Italy" :P --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

7. Often these mines were triggered by heavy buses and trucks as they are about the same weight as military vehicles to trigger the mines (more abundant too).

I dont understand what is the dispute here. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

8 They also abducted/killed doctors, teachers and other non-military government employees.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kurds1.html
At least 134 teachers have been murdered under Ocalan's orders. One of Ocalan's aims is to protect Kurds from being forced to learn the Turkish language and abandon the Kurdish culture.
Killing a Calculus teacher or a Physics teacher does NOT save the Kurdish culture. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Opinion. Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

9. In an attempt to damage Turkey's tourist industry, the PKK has bombed tourist sites and hotels and kidnapped foreign tourists.

Why else would one blow up hotels, abduct tourists, burn forests? --Cool Cat My Talk 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

All for now

Done for now, will add more material later. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey man, I've added some more stuff above, the edit box messed up so I've lost some of your less information laden comments, there should still be some in though. I wouldn't recommend re-adding them as most consisted of "Well documented, well known", which is not what the "disputed facts" section is about. I've removed the POV link and added some more links, I hope these are more reputable sources. Please take the time to read sources that I have cited. Also why did you remove one of my links from the front page? I will re-add it in case it was a mistake. - FrancisTyers 14:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It was an error on my part. My apology, I did spend the last 50+ edits writing current version. ;) --Cool Cat My Talk 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
When I say "Well documented, well known" I mean it. The external links exist for that reason. Also do not delete the 404 pages. I am watching them. The sites may return, normaly we ait 2 months before removing comented links. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Whats bad about timeline? It needs work, coment it out and it will get deleted as is orphaned. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please be carefull with future edits and not remove my comments, Ill restore them. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Thats not what the disputed facts section is about. I am trying to compile a list of specific sources for these facts. I'm sure you can see what I am trying to do with the additions I've made. I'm amazed how you are arguing with me over sources I've found to PROVE your POV. I would like to remove anything from the disputed facts section that isn't about directly proving a disputed fact, this includes my requests for you to cite your sources and your citation-less assertions. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
See the links I posted for sources, then dispute my facts. This is being a distastefull discussion. There is nothing diputed on the material I provided. Kurdistan.org maybe disputing it, please follow your advice and avoid "kurd" and "turk" in source urls. My sources do not only provide information regarding PKK, I lack the patience to hand feed you every detail, I expect you to read the URLs I gave you as I am sick of explaining my self to new people that come to the conversation. Catch up. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

...

For the same reason that we should have www.kurdistan.org in the PKK article below, the kurds are going to have an inherent bias, and the turks are going to have an inherent bias, this should be shown. Or do you really think the ATAA are a neutral unbiased source? (they called armenia a "rats hole", which maybe you believe but most people would think is a tad on the biased side.) - FrancisTyers

The actal material written is from editors not affiliated with the organisation. I f you can find the articles themselvses, do it. I do not see what you are trying to achieve here, I am not happy with you creating categories here. If you want to jsutify the Kurdish argument, go for it. I cation you however not to provide reports and arguments based on propoganda. I lived there, actualy been there, you havent. I know certain things reprots cant tell you or tell you vaugely. If you support a free Kurdistan you should probably be not writing this article. I do not CARE how PKK justifies killing teachers etc. In my POV
  1. The PKK is not a peacefull organisation.
  2. PKK is what they are, as classified by navy resources, a Terrorist organisation. While its best practice to keep the usage of this word to a minimum this does not mean no terrorist organisation does not exist. Do bear in mind I have no problem with proper tuning of words.
  3. PKK opretives are bad in general. Some notable ones will be arrested in Europe/US etc on sight if they ever arrive to those nations. Same thing does not apply to the Turkish Persident. If you want to talk about Human Rights these people are guilty of crimes not only to other Ethnicities but to their own fellow kurds as well.
  4. I gave you Navy.mil's official report describing the organisation. First move your villige guards article here. You cant seperate that.
Btw, do not ever asign me, or even iply titles such as me calling armenians "rats hole", if PKK link is present, Tutkish POV will be as it is insightfull. I have no material in this article based on what ATAA claims. I can list more sources, I just got tired from copy pasting sites in the first 40 notable sites from google. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

--Cool Cat My Talk 11:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't support a free Kurdistan then perhaps you should not be writing this article.

1. Wow, did you work that out all by yourself?! </sarcasm>
2. Agreed they are. I think I must have agreed with you on this over ten times already.
3. I agree. As an organisation they have committed numerous human rights abuses (This is not to say that EVERY member is guilty). But NEWSFLASH!!! so has the Turkish state, the Turkish military and security forces and the village guards. Maybe I should add some of the less savoury stuff to the Turkish Armed Forces article. If you read the articles I've cited, you'll see this:
the presence of the terrorist organisation, PKK, hand-in-hand with international crime organisations engaging in trafficking in drugs and human beings. (From the Council of Europe report, there is more).
4. You can't separate the village guard system from the Kurdistan Workers Party? Personally I find that hard to believe. If the article was called "Conflict in Southeastern Turkey" or "Conflict in Kurdistan" (in which case it would include information about the collapse of the USSR sponsored state in Iran too and probably some others) maybe I could understand the village guards article being in here (and personally I see a lot of merit in creating such an article). But iirc the village guard system and the kurdistan workers party are two separate entities.

- FrancisTyers 18:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

this article is full of turkish propaganda. all the kurds support pkk. if pkk is such a horrible organization, tell me why leyla zana who support pkk got sakharov human rights prize from the european union? tell me why she was nominated for nobel prize?

during hitler rule, german resistance to the nazis was called terrorism too. the turks are nazis. their policy is based on ethnic cleansing of kurds physically and culturally. hundreds of thousands of kurds were tortured to death just for speaking kurdish or celebrating kurdish holidays and kurdish cultures.

here is an example of that : http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6687

the tortured young girls tortured with SERRATED OBJECTS spent more than 5 years in prison for confessions made under torture. the policemen who tortured them did not spend one day in prison. they were considered innocent. this didn't happen 20 years ago, this happened 3 months ago, like the killing of ugur kaymaz ( 12 year-old ) : http://www.kurdmedia.com/printarticles.asp?id=2301 for which nobody was punished

we haven't forgotten, like armenians haven't forgotten the armenian genocide. turkish state will never change, they're the terrorists in these matters. cool cat here is a very good example of turkish irrational racism towards kurds, and a very good puppet of his government. as I don't know anything about editing or anything like this, I won't bother. but if you keep pages like this in this way, you should probably rename wikipedia to turkipedia.

biji kurdistan

- kassem

Actually, not all Kurds support the PKK, if you can some up with a source that gives the support in a percentage or numbers I would be very happy :). I agree that the article is somewhat POV (I've been trying to help out, you can look at my edits), please feel free to slap an NPOV label at the top. You are probably better to not post articles with "kurd" in the URL. Try looking at "Human Rights Watch" and "Amnesty International" for a slightly less biased (although still biased) news source. I definately think this article needs more about the terrorism practiced by the turkish state. - FrancisTyers 12:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Only a minority of the "Kurds" support PKK. Guesstimating the actual level of support may be futile. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. I tend to point out the obvious to make sure we are not in conflict. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. I never said every member of PKK should be shot on sight. I would think at a minimum must be rehabiliated back to civilian life, just like what some vietnam vets recieved. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Villige guards were formed against PKK, before PKK no villige guards were present. The system was mostly effective against the PKK as lesser vilige ambush was the case. PKK isnt exactly gone. There had been a skirmish about a week ago. Plans to abolish Town guards are in progress as far as I know. I cant see a single reason why would you want to seperate villige guards. Villige Guards in sum are a counter-terror group. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. FYI, I am not the president of Turkey nor do I hold any govermental post (thank god), I do not quite care on every diplomatic comunication Turkey makes or recieves as diplomatic talk is not a primary source alone, its just someone talking. The words gain official status if the person speaking has such status, even then nations frequently "take their words back" or "forget about it", its just how nations with borders do things. As for my edits on Turkish Armed Forces, I added about nothing, I only added rank insignias and broke the article apart. I suggest you actualy compare the page. I so far have edited US Army, British Army, and Turkish Army (which was a part of Turkish Armed Forces before I broke it apart]]. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/u/r/Talk%7EKurdistan_Workers_Party_Archive_1_36cb.html"