Talk:Kurdistan Workers Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurdistan Workers Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Kurdistan Workers Party: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • send this article to peer review to get input for the AID-collaboration
Kurdistan Workers Party is part of the Terrorism and counter-terrorism WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of terrorism and counter-terrorism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Removed pending citation

  • As of 2005, the PKK's return to violence has been with much less ferocity than its pre-1999 campaign, and the Turkish military, in contrast to the aggressive tactics of the 1980s and 1990s, have largely pursued a policy of maintaining normality in southeastern Turkey. The movement seems to have lost considerable support among Kurds, with a significant number of Democratic People's Party politicians and prominent formerly pro-PKK personalities denouncing the return to violence. [citation needed]
    • Yes, the violence stared again in 2005, Şemdin Sakik, second man coming right after Ocalan, stated that "The only people left in PKK that want to fight are war-loving-maniacs." and added "PKK is the primary reason of povery and economic problesm in Turkey". Onhis letter to Ocalan. If you really want citation I can but it will likely be in Turkish only. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently fighting with PKK on the Iranian mountains. The former government of Iraq supported PKK. After the second gulf war, the current government of Iraq and USA acknowledges the PKK as a terrorist group, however they are doing very little about the PKK's Northern Iraqi bases. [citation needed]
    • US is doing little to the PKK, no operations no nothing, Turkey has stated this diplomaticaly on many ocasions.
    • PKK on many ocasions commited actions in exchange of wepons or money for the regional countries. When Syria needed people to damage/destroy/slow down the Southeastern Anatolia Project, they used the PKK. I do not know how citable this is but it is logical if you think about it.
    • --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • More recently, however, countries which formerly did little to curb the presence of the PKK in their territory and sometimes even supported the organization, have changed their policies. [citation needed]
    • Greece somewhat-openly supported the PKK to the point of training PKK millitants. It is however covert ops leaked to the media and hence perhaps should be mentioned as a "claim" under a conspiracy section or something like that. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The PKK have participated in a variety of activities recognized as illegal; they've also borrowed some tactics used by terrorist or guerrilla organizations. Generally PKK was very eclectic. PKK used everything in its disposal. However, there are patterns in PKK activities. [citation needed]
    • This is a general statement. PKK did not invent every tactic it used if any. can be re writen in a more npov manner as below.
    • The PKK have participated in a variety of activities and borrowed some tactics used guerrilla warfare tactics. While the PKK was very eclectic using everything in its disposal, there are recognisable patterns in PKK activities.
    • If PKK used conventional warfare the conflict would have lasted perhaps several days. PKK used guerrilla warfare and guerrilla warfare tends to have a very complicated patern if at all.
    • --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • With the change of world conjecture and security systems increase control of the boarders ended with the failure to moving into third phase. This is rectified by moving into intifada structure. Through intifada PKK aims to became legalized and gain legal protection from its past activities. [citation needed]
    • I already cited this, though my cited information was removed by my stalkers you are familiar with FrancisTyers. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • PKK within its life time has been a tool or source of many international conflicts. [citation needed]
  • By defining the problem in terms of Turkey's handling of the PKK, the EU's lack of support for alternative solutions to the Kurdish problem creates the perception of a clash of civilizations between the EU and Turkey and it also demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for the cultural problems that are involved in the Kurdish situation. [citation needed]
  • As a multicultural country with more than 30 ethnic groups all (except some of the Kurds) peacefully coexisting and working together in spite of discomfiture with the Turkey's stance on political and cultural matters, EU's inability to support more pluralistic views is perceived by many of the citizens of Turkey as pushing the tired argument of cultural incompatibility -- a clash of cultures. [citation needed]
  • The EU's lack of contact with groups promoting "diversity in unity" in Turkey is not explainable. [citation needed]
  • Also the facts regarding the EU visits covering only southeast provinces, or claims of Human Rights Court regarding Öcalan's trail, or member states unwillingness to take a pose against the PKK have been used as defending arguments of this incompatibility. [citation needed]
  • The Turkish political terminology "unrealistic expectations", is becoming commonly used for EU's demands originating European political dysfunction on inability to separate between "Human Rights" and political and cultural arguments of violence, section:stance against terrorism. [citation needed]
You have removed over god knows how many bytes of data. Large scale removals are bad and inflames/angers/annoys others in this case me, so please dont. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please refer to: WP:CITE thanks :) - FrancisTyers 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion
Please don't restore uncited material. - FrancisTyers 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material you removed is not disputed and is cited. Drug trafficing and extorsion activity of PKK is cited by UK/US govs. And those are perfectly neutral sources. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

UK and US Govts are not at all neutral sources! They are both in NATO with Turkey and both have added PKK onto their terrorism lists. Intergovernmental bodies like European Court of Human Rights, United Nations bodies and organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are neutral. 81.174.159.170 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I strongly dispute the relevance of the entire section on 'PKK-linked parties' in Turkey but as it is large I do not want to just delete it. That phrase implies to me that they are parties with involvement or funding from PKK. It is more true to say that these are parties with policies that support Kurds. Perhaps many of their voters would also support PKK but that does not mean they are PKK-linked. 81.174.159.170 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

Here: these cites a large number of items. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1482808,00.html
  • http://www.ict.org.il/organizations/orgdet.cfm?orgid=20
  • www.ag.gov.au 15 December 2005 - PKK LISTED AS TERRORIST ORGANISATION
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358115.stm
    • Ocalan: Greeks supplied Kurdish rebels
    • Aka other countries aid PKK
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/535312.stm
    • From his prison cell, he [Ocalan] has issued a series of orders to his Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4305692.stm
    • Enis Berberoglu, who has written several books on the subject, agrees: "Turkey was deeply involved in drug smuggling in the mid 1990s. There was a very strong mafia here at that time and the PKK (the Kurdish rebel group the Kurdistan Workers Party) used to take protection money in return for letting them operate in the east," he said.
    • Drug ties
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/234429.stm
    • Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan has called his own guerrillas "murderers" and says he wants nothing more to do with their tactics.
    • In an interview with a Turkish newspaper on Sunday, Mr Ocalan also blamed his former right-hand man Semdin Sakik for PKK atrocities. In particular he absolved himself of responsibility for the killings of Turkish primary school teachers in southeastern Anatolia.
      • No comment. PKK millitants are murderers according to their own leader. Also acknowleges the killings of teachers. Thourgh BBC I am citing PKK as referance btw not Turkish or UK gov.
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3200907.stm
    • The main militant Kurdish group in Turkey says it is ending a unilateral ceasefire declared after the capture of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, four years ago.
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4688575.stm
    • An explosion on a minibus in the Turkish Aegean resort of Kusadasi has killed at least five people, including one British and one Irish woman
    • Their overall aim is to force the Turkish government to grant autonomy to the predominantly Kurdish south-east of the country, but the means to that end appears to be to strike at the tourism industry - the life blood of the Turkish economy, our [BBC's] correspondent says.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

References are important but you will never achieve perfect objectivity. Can we not have a side-by-side comparative presentation of different points of view on the main page? This will enable viewers to see each side of the case, and how their points of view are informed. Don't strip the cogs off the wheel here. Rather preserve them. Maggie Thatcher used to refer to Nelson Mandela as "that terrorist". The wheels of time move.

[edit] Vandalism through -Pending citation-

When I look at the document I recognize that every sentence that builds the information regarding to the violent activities of PKK, including the timeline which its facts were scrutinized couple archives ago, assigned as "needs citation". Now, they are removed from the document. It is funny that an organization that is accepted by EU and USA as terrorist is going to be ripped of its references of violence from this document. I believe this is a form of vandalism. Just from the historical perspective; the same person was deleting the content until the text became purely informative, to fit into NPOV. After the text become only factual, we begin to see elimination of the facts using the argument of citation. Elimination of information with a specific goal (cleansing), needs to be deal as vandalism. I would like to hear voices on this issue, for the sake of wikipedia.--tommiks 09:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am editing in good faith. Please try and be civil when discussing on the talk page and please don't attack me on my user talk page. Wikipedia policy states that Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion (WP:CITE) so please don't try and mis-characterise my edits as vandalism. Thankyou :) - FrancisTyers 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes I feel you are working in good faith however please do not do anything contradicting IRC discussions. At least do so after a discussion here. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to eliminate the tempalte on neutrality and factuality.

With all the uncited material moved out of the page, I propose this template should be removed from this page. --tommiks 11:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to rush, this page will be a featured candidate (elite article) when I am done with it. Any and everyones help to that end is greatly apriciated. I havent even begun editing this one ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the whole thing is still disputed and uncited. Please do not remove the template without consensus. - FrancisTyers 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The template is a minor issue. It will vanish definately, just not today... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations about 81.213.226.95 and GunduzIcen --can be see in history tab--

I had forgotten to log in and had added a sentence "The Organization is considered as terrorist by Turkey, EU and USA." into the first paragraph before I saw the sentence "The PKK is defined as a terrorist organisation internationally by a number of states and organisations." So 81.213.226.95 is me. After I saw the latter sentence, I deleted what I had added. GunduzIcen 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The language in this article is terrible to say the least. I have a modest proposal for improvement:130.132.62.92 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ban all Turkish ultra-nationalists (i.e. all Turkish users on en) from editing this article until they can demonstrate their ability to write a coherent English sentence.
  • Until that time, replace the article with "All Kurds are terrorist dogs and deserve only slaughter. The same goes for their children." While keeping the gist of the current article, this version is more aesthetically pleasing.

Kind regards, 80.202.25.17 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with your evaluation of the quality of prose, however your remedy is rather extreme to say the least. - FrancisTyers 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC):Oh, I've a better idea. Let the ultra-super English speakers try to improve the language of the article instead of complaining about it. However, this might be more challenging then ridiculing about Turkish users, so they may not want to do. levent 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please try and be civil, both 80.202.25.17 and levent. levent, I'm sorry if you took my criticism of the quality of the prose as ridiculing Turkish users. You might be interested to know that the article wasn't entirely written by Turkish users, I have a number of lines and some Kurdish users have a number of lines too. A less confrontational approach might help you when dealing with users with conflicting points of view. - FrancisTyers 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No I did not. My answer was only intended to 80.202.25.17, I'm sorry if it seems otherwise. And he sure got the gist of the article wrong, forcing me to think he even not read it. levent 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Roj TV is a pure violent racist fascist propaganda (similar to what Gobbels did in WW2) media, whose activities can be classified as helping to the American imperialism (the only American-supporter in the world) to conquer Iraq, keeping feodal pressure on Kurdish people, hindering economical and scientific development of Kurdish people, in accordance with the efforts of supporting feodalism.

Today the ONLY problem of Kurdish people is racism and feodalism. The feodal sheiks who have almost infinite power over Kurdish people, are working hard to sustain their authority, by hindering economical, scientific and philosophical development of Kurdish people. This requires, by its nature, usage of violence. But violence against people. In its 20 year history, PKK has NEVER attacked to feodal sheiks. Instead, PKK aims to guarantee survive of feodalism in Kurdish regions, by keeping traditional feodal items in Kurdish culture (Kurdistan is the only region in Turkey, where killing an innocent daughter is culturally promoted) in the name of cultural freedom, and of course by applying terror over mostly Kurdish and also Turkish people.

All these prove that, unfortunately, Roj TV, or DTP or PKK etc. all dominant Kurdish groups (they are dominant because they are fed by feodal sheiks) are fascists (their socialist names are nothing but fake) and they are the REAL enemies of Kurdish people and Kurdish socialist movement.

I do hope that this would be satisfactory for you to see that a "Turkish Ultra-nationalist" is able to write, read and understand the text as you do. There are lots of stuff to criticize on this page, but one of the biggest faults is the term of "kurdistan region of Turkey". Anyone interested in this article or willing to add some of his knowledge on the issue must know and realize that there never had been any "kurdistan region" on Anatolian lands, even in Ottoman Empire times and before; and also any part of Turkish Republic never existed and named as "kurdistan". But it is a fact that there are some cities inwhich people from Kurdish ethnicity lives as major numbers in total population ratio by there. It is again a fact that those cities that i have identified in sociodemographic behaviours in the sentence before, are mostly in eastern site of Turkey. But one should never ignore that the major count of Kurdish citizens of Turkey do live in İstanbul and other big cities like Ankara, Adana, Mersin ... etc; not in Diyarbakır. In Diyarbakır and the other cities which are thought and imagined as the parts of virtual "kurdistan" are dominated just by the ratios in numbers. In the end of my correction note; PKK and other legal or illegal organisations related to PKK are purely terrorist groups. It is not associated with socialism, fascism; terror is terror, not more. And as the former citizens of Turkish Republic we will never let their dreams to come true. There ahead a nightmare is waiting for them in future. 14-04-06 CANCAN

Can someone please tell me where I can complain about these intolerant users? Ozgurgerilla 02:03, 26 April 2006


intolerant users??? you have interesting ideas on the issue. how u dare to judge people and their corrections when you are claiming a legal and rightful country as a "fake fascist regime" on your own page. you, espcially you, had already lost your objectivity and the right to criticise others. what if others would have complained about your intolerance ... let's be serious. CANCAN

You in your previous reply said that one of the biggest faults here is the term Kurdistan. Forget the fact that users here refer to the term Kurdistan as the geographical and cultural region in Middle East inhabited predominantly by Kurds. You said there never has been any kurdistan region on anatolian lands; I would like to prove you wrong, [Kingdom of Kurdistan]. It seems that the economic corruption doesn't bother you as much as the term Kurdistan being used which is entirely related to freedom of speech, something Turkey is desperate for. So seriously, lets be serious and look at facts: [Orhan Pamuk]
Also, could you please stop inserting horizontal lines, you are no special to do it. Ozgurgerilla 11:50, 27 April 2006


do you mean the attempt to establish a kingdom which is supported by european countries to have a country in their controls on todays Iraq after the world war, before they had shared all the ottoman empire? an attempt to last in two years. do not forget that united kingdom had a dream to be the second roman empire in world war 1; and they always used the tactic which can be told as "divide et impera !", divide and control... and that sociopolitical organisation was on the ıraq terrority not on anatolia, according to the source that you gave the link of. the second attempt on southeastern Turkiye was not accepted and not known by any country as legal and lasted in three months, it was just a rebellion as todays pkk attempts. and in your reply you mentioned that "geographical and cultural region in Middle East inhabited predominantly by Kurds" is called as kurdistan, so if this hypothesis is true do you name the regions in Germany which are inhabited predominantly by Turks, as Turkistan? and if you had read my previous reply with attention you would have seen that i had mentioned that there were lots of faults to criticise not only the term of "kurdistan". finally if i am to explain why do i use these lines, it is just to separate my ideas from yours CANCAN

Maybe if the Ottoman Empire gave the Kurds the freedom to study their history and to learn & speak Kurdish then Kurds would of had a country and not an attempt. Kurds do not trust the Turkish government because through out the history Turks have used the Kurds as slaves, killed ordinary people and called them PKK members Semdinli, discriminated them, the Turkish government also did no economic or any other kind of improvements for the southeast of Turkey for I don't know how many centuries simply because that is a Kurdish region. EU and the Ottomans used the Kurds for years and years so don't try to show EU and hide the Ottoman mistakes which are bigger then all. Finally, Unfortunately, Kurdistan is only the name of a geographic region and a cultural region in Middle East inhabited predominantly by Kurds. It is not an independent state. If the regions you're talking about are predominantly inhabited by Turks you should feel free to call it what ever you want, Turkistan, Turkmenistan, Turdistan, Ottomans, Pashas.. What ever you wish to call it. But the difference from the Turks inhabiting in Germany (which I can easily say 4 million of 5 are not Turks and Kurds) and the Kurds in Turkey is the population. There is more then 20 million in Turkey and approximately 5 million in Germany. Also on this, you should check out some unbiased history and war studies books. All of them use the term Kurdistan as the geographic region inhabited predominantly by Kurds which makes me think your opposition to the term comes from nationalist obsessions. No, you've said "one of the biggest faults is the term 'Kurdistan'". You can obviously express your thoughts and feelings on the matter but don't try to stop others from using any term because everyone should have the freedom to use any word. The lines are also very disturbing because it fades the standard talk page template which makes it difficult to spot the sections from your comments. I would like to kindly ask you to stop using them. Ozgurgerilla 07:07, 01 May 2006
Dear Ozgur, The Porte had a millet based system where subjects were classified according to their religions instead of ethnic origins. As far as I know, there was no explicit ban on the study of Kurdish language/history. It was the Republic that identified Kurdish nationalism as a threat to its fragile unity and violently suppressed Kurdish culture for decades to come. But thanks to the EU process we now have TV and radio stations broadcasting in Kurdish. Private institutions are allowed to offer courses in Kurdish language. There are foundations devoted to advancement of Kurdish studies. I realize that the picture is far from rosy. Fanatics on both sides are continuing to do their best to reverse this course and prevent Turkey from joining EU. In a very perverted way, they are helping each other and unwittingly serving other causes. The Kurdish nationalism in this sense, just like its evil-twin, is doomed to failure and bring more tragedies because the Turkish Armed Forces, the second largest army of NATO, will never allow a new nation-state rise on the Turkish soil. So, it is time for reasonable people on both sides to drop heated rhetoric and empty dreams so that we can focus on pursuing further democratization of the Republic and advancing human rights for all. (Have you heard of anything about the other oppressed religious, ethnic, sexual minorities in Turkey?) Nevertheless, I apologize for the tangent and wholeheartedly wish that voices of "reason" will find a place on these pages as well. Victor
Hello Victor, whatever The Porte's system was, it is important how much you care about the suppression towards the Kurdish people. Most Kurds see this as a struggle for independence and every unbiased history book states that the suppression by Ottoman and Turkey was/is harsh. Before classifying people with prejudice AND before giving compliments to the Turkish Armed Forces (which makes be reconsider if your name is really victor) I suggest you look deeper to the problem. Why Kurdish politicians, authors, musicians, directors, civilians are executed, tortured or exiled to all around the world. Why the name Ahmet Kaya was stopped to be given to a park in Adana (recent) why Kurdish isn't on TV? why the national TV doesn't care about the millions of Kurds and still puts maximum 1 hour of Kurdish and bans everything in Kurdish, controls the media and puts the Kurdish that it wants to be broadcasted. This isn't a process this isn't a success this is making things worser; and this is the reason why EU wouldn't accept Turkey the actions are not to give Kurds independence is just to shut them up until they join EU. Thank you victor.

Actually, much of the above is not true. The Ottomans (in contrast to Turkey) did not in any way restrict Kurdish culture and language, and in fact in schools instruction was given in the local language. The Ottomans did expend a degree of effort trying to sedentarize nomadic Kurds, but that is hardly a policy designed to discriminate against a particular ethnic group. It is largely due to the Ottoman legacy of categorizing people by religion rather than ethnicity that has led to the situation where until recently, many or most Turks were unaware of a separate Kurdish ethnicity - they were thought of as "Mountain Turks". As long as the most prominent Kurdish representative group is the Marxist separatist terrorist PKK, progress for the Kurds will be jeopardized. Turkey has a very long history of foreign-backed terror organizations used as a mechanism for territorial aggrandizement at its expense - so while the Turkish attitude toward the Kurds may seem paranoid, it is not without basis. I have to wonder what would happen to the US "English Only" movement if there was a Mexican terrorist organization fighting to annex the American Southwest. Once violence and terror is renounced I don't see why there is any reason to doubt that whatever restrictions there are left on Kurdish culture shouldn't disappear. As it is, it is difficult to deny that a lot of progress has been made in recent years. But statements above like "Why Kurdish politicians, authors, musicians, directors, civilians are executed, tortured or exiled to all around the world" are patently false and totally unconstructive - can anyone name the last Kurd executed? Is anyone aware that two Presidents of Turkey have been Kurds? Jpiccone 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Yilmaz Guney, Ahmet Kaya, Sivan Perwer these aren't artists who are exiled right? only two-faced singers like Ibrahim Tatlises stayed in Turkey. Erdal Eren, Deniz Gezmis, Yusuf Aslan, Huseyin Inan these aren't people who are executed right? There was one Kurdish president who was going to give Kurds their rights but the military of Turkey did not let him. İsmet İnönü, just like many other Kurdish people in Turkey who think being a Kurd is been a seperatist have killed thousands of Kurds just like Inonu did in Dersim. There is a doubt of Kurdish human rights even when terror and violence stops in Turkey because before 1970's there wasn't any PKK but there was the terror of the Turkish army attacking Kurdish cities like Dersim, Maras, Diyarbakir. Restrictions are active and would be active within Turkey one way or the other way towards the Kurds because Turkey is afraid of its "minorities" becoming majorities. Ozgur Gerilla 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once violence and terror is renounced I don't see why there is any reason to doubt that whatever restrictions there are left on Kurdish culture shouldn't disappear.

Ozgur you may want to read this article. Seems EU's support to terrorism also coming to an end:
Lagendijk: Kurdish People In Turkey Should Tell PKK To Stop This Old Fashioned Tactics
--Gokhan 07:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KGK'

I cannot see the objection to the term Kurdistan, although maybe it is worth noting it is a contested concept. Term term was first used by the Selcük Turks to refer to region Kermanshah in Iran. Under Ottoman Empire Kurdistan refered to a vague cultural-cum geographical region. During this pre nationalism period a Kurdistan did not have any political meaning. Equally, in a pre modern period geography had different implications, it was not a tool in nation buiding as it is to day. Indeed, in the 19th century when to Ottoman state was trying to mobilise an Islamic nationalism the Ottoman state used the term Kurdistan to assert the East's Islamıc identity over Aremenistan. Even Turkish nationalist, Ziya Gölkap, referred to Diyarbekir as being in 'Kurdistan'. However, with the shift form an Islamic nationalism to a ethnic Turkish nationalism lead to the suppression of the term Kurdistan.. That being said, today, Kurdistan regions do have 'offical' reality in Iraq (after the 1970 autonomy law of Saddam) and In Iran which has alway had a Kurdistan province (along with an Azerbaycan.)

[edit] KGK's Annual Budget?

Hi All -- I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing. I have found the discussions to be quite educational -- almost moreso than the article! Dispite all of the disputed sections, at least the information is being made available to those of us who are ignorant of the entire situation. Regardless of the perfecting of the article, any reader should sort out their own opinion after conducting additional research. Now, back to my question -- the opening statement under Resource cites: The organisation's budget has been estimated at $86 million USD. Is this an annual figure? or is this the organisation's current assets? Just wondering if that section is up for any clarification. To all who contributed, Internet surfers like me cruizin' the web appreciate your efforts 198.65.166.222 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)vashmoran

[edit] Disputes

What's the problem here? AucamanTalk 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Various things, basically the whole page, here are some egregious examples:

  • In its activities main goal was to alienate the people from the state through pushing security forces into more and more overt and repressive countermeasures.
  • Given the fact that the majority of the people are very resilient to the effects of the political violence, the young people whom their stable personality did not develop forms a high risk group.
  • When these ideas were falsified, either this realization pushes the young to become a member of the activity group (risk seeking) or generate tendencies towards suicide, feelings of insecurity, problems with authority and lack of social integration.

The whole thing reads like an Op-Ed. - FrancisTyers 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are also examples for the other two tags. Are you a native English speaker? - FrancisTyers 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dead links and stuff...

Several of the US and UK links in the

"Websites with criticism of the PKK

governmental:"

section are now dead. Coincidence, or a result of the Kurdish guerillas now being a part of tne Anglo-American strategy against Iran?...

The PKK is now threatening more attacks in Iran, and according to this Aljazeera article they're militant feminists too. They just might be the perfect vangaurd for the neo-con transformation of the Middle East!

Now the only question is - will NATO still have Turkey this Thanksgiving if those pesky Kurds keep getting in the whey?!

I do not see how this is relevant to the integrity of the article. And with the Iraq war one thing is clear, the NATO is not the puppet of the US. --Cat out 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Why the photos removed? These photos are real and has no copyrihgt problem. Ruzgar 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights are a delicate process. I am sure the photo is real, however I do not believe it is aproporate in the article.
Who has taken the photos? You? The Turkish Government? It is likely by the Turkish Army. From what I know, photos taken by the Turkish Army is not automaticaly released into the public domain.
Furthermore I do not believe a picture is ncecesary to express the horror PKK had commited and frankly a statistics on their activity would be more encyclopedic.
--Cat out 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This photo taken by Turkish police. It is published all goverment sites. And it has no copyright problem. And if you are thinking Wikipedia is not a shock site. Please Armenian GenocideRuzgar 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This photo should have a caption explaining what on earth it has to do with the PKK. For the time being, I'm removing it. mgekelly 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to remove all pictures that are inserted to the article for propaganda purposes. Ozgur Gerilla 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I remove your propaganda words. Calm down my friend these are the trues. Your leader Apo said "The way to the heaven pass through hell". Face with the trues.Ruzgar 02:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

right, im fed up with you. Ozgur Gerilla 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am "fed up" with both of you. I have removed the image unless you can tell me a damn good reason how does it explain the PKK. --Cat out 17:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Coll cat go the Armenian Genocide article and remove the photos and then come and fed up me. Ruzgar 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to inform you about the admin User:InShaneee

"This is your only warning. Continue to add this picture to articles and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)"

This admin has treaten me showing no reason why should I have to remove this photo. Ruzgar 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of PKK killings

Is there a complete list of PKK killings (military+civilian), like a timeline or something? If no, should it be in this article or in another one? --Gokhan 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no complete lists. The one in the Civilian_casualties_caused_by_PKK page is also incomplete.--Hattusili 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Timeline is ugly. If you can cite a source that lists the death toll, I can come up with a graph and a proper list. --Cat out 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the image

"NPOV" means "neutral point of view". Placing an image at that at the top of the article is unacceptable. Why? Because we should not sway the reader into believing one POV or the other, it's for them to decide whether the PKK is an organization whose sole purpose is killing babies or not. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox, i.e. propaganda or advocacy. That is why the image should not be re-added. —Khoikhoi 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I absolutely positively agree with you. On top of that, this being an unbiased environment, the exact same rule should apply for Armenian Genocide page, don't you agree??? --Memzo 21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above Armanalp 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I noticed that the article at the French Wikipedia doesn't have images. However, you're probably going to have to discuss it with the folks over at the talk page. Good luck. —Khoikhoi 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi where is your "NPOV" idea in Armenian Genocide article. Please go that article and show your "NPOV".

This photo has no copyright problems, it is reality and it will be published here. Sorry but you can't do anything for this my friend. Your admin friends also cannot help you. Sorry :( Ruzgar 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the photos should be removed from that article, but there's no way that's ever gonna happen. Why? Go check out the discussion page and see for yourself. You still haven't provided me a reason why that image should be in the article. —Khoikhoi 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't provided me a reason why that image should not be in the article. Erdemsenol 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. Read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Khoikhoi 05:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. But, by censoring information, you are making it into a soapbox Khoikhoi. I am not a registered user, therefore will not interfere with the article. But, I feel obliged to say that it is an act of propaganda to censor accurate information, which in this case is the picture. Please do not act out of bias here in Wikipedia. Thank you. --88.224.134.89 12:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The image can go in the article on Conflict in south-eastern Turkey. It has no place in this article. Lets look at other "terrorist" group articles for prescedent: IRA (no death photos), LTTE (no death photos), EZLN (no death photos), FARC (no death photos)... etc. Go and work on Conflict in south-eastern Turkey. - FrancisTyers 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You published cartoons of Mohammed(S.A.V), you published photos in Armenian Genocide article in the name of democracy and free speech. The this photo is published sorry my friend you cant do anything for that.

In the case of the Mohammed cartoons, there was a consensus to have the image up. In the case of the Armenian Genocide article, I agree that the images should be removed, but nothing can be done now because the page is protected. —Khoikhoi 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article, so it would be easier for you to settle the differences without attacks of sock-puppets, etc. If needed, I could fully protect the article until the differences would be settled. If you ask my own opinion as an editor, I believe that the image should go from the top right corner of the article, since the stated goal of the party is not killing babies. I, personally, would not see problems in putting the image somewhere down, e.g. to illustrate the Effects section. abakharev 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this image is currently deleted due to its lack of usable copyright status. The uploader keeps claiming that because the Turkish government made it, it is free, but to my knowledge Wikipedia currently does not acknowledge that claim. --InShaneee 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish Government has released all rights from the picture, as Ruzgar has said. So, it can easily fall into this category:

Public domain This work has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
The copyright holder grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

OR

Copyrighted This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain.

I can see no acceptable reason for deleting it. --88.240.144.13 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no proof that the Turkish government has released it into the public domain outside of Ruzgar's claims. --InShaneee 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon, the case of the copyright status work of the US government was thoroughly studied by Wikimedia m:Legal department. The case of the work by the Turkish government was not studied by Wikimedia's lawyers. Yo may want to contact m:Legal department and check the situation with them. abakharev 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Why even bother? I already explained to him that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", but he keeps pointing me to the Armenian Genocide article. That article seems to have a lot of different exceptions to the rule, but if you look at the Hamas article, do you see a picture of dead bodies at the top of the page? How many times do I have to tell you that it's not our job to sway the reader to one side or the other? —Khoikhoi 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For a similar discussion see Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Image:Wolyn1943.jpg, Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Survey. What to do with the Image:Wolyn1943.jpg? and Massacre_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#Massacres where the image eventually landed. abakharev 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture has no copyright problems. It is taken by Turkish police and it is published by Turkish Goverment to the public. I ask InShaneee, you delete every photo by published American Goverment license? Because 90% of photos in Wikipedia claimed that "this image has no copyright problems" only by their uploaders. Inshanee please ask every user who added a photo of USA. And also look at this Avoid Copyright Paranoia .

This photo is important because that explains the PKK's brutality. And also it explains PKK is not a kurdish freedom organisation. The baby killed here is a kurdish baby. Pkk want to show them the defender(!) of Kurds. But they can't even speak in the name our Kurdish brothers and sisters. Wikipedia published cartoons because they claimed without cartoon nobody understand this article. Without this photo noboby understand what the PKK did.

InShaneee can remove photos in Armenian Genocide article. But I think InShaneee is busy with blocking Turkish users. And I also inform you Inshaneee blocken me with this reason "this photo is NPOV, this photo is Copyright problems". Of course photos cannot be NPOV, photos are photos and they are reality. You can't give a comment to photo. And as you can see above it has no copyrihgt problem. Simply InShanee censor me.

Also I inform you about InShaneee and Khoikhoi. They work like a team. The InShaneee threaten me and block me then a one minute later Khoikhoi add a message here. They make that because they say when they vandalise this page "see talk page". Because of my block I can't write here. Simply they censor me.

As you can see above nobody can show a reason to block this photo.

Ruzgar 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruzgar, I already explained to you why the image can't be up there. Stop telling me about the Armenian Genocide page, no one will ever get the images to be removed there, see the comments on the talk page if you want to know why. I said very clearly, we're not supposed to sway the reader to one side or the other, but you continue to ignore me. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for propaganda or advocacy. And yet you still don't understand that. —Khoikhoi 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me a reason then remove this image. You can't censor Wikipedia. Ruzgar 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Three reasons:
  1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - a place for propaganda or advocacy
  2. You're the only one who wants the image up, there's no consensus on it, unlike the Mohammed cartoons
  3. This is a neutral encyclopedia, it's up for readers to decide whether the PKK does nothing but kill babies, not for you to shove it in people's faces.
—Khoikhoi 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


  1. That is not a soapbox(you dont show a difference between this photo and the photos in Armenian Genocide article). That is not a propaganda that is a reality.
  2. Wikipedia is not a democracy project. Because of that the numbers are not important. 300 people claim that the world is not turning. But one photo can prove the world is turning.
  3. You are the last one who can defend neutrality of encylopedia. Also the people can decide in Armenian Genocide article without photo is realy Turks are killer or not. Wikipedia has same rules for all articles. And if the rules say the photos in Armenian Genocide article are not a soapbox, this photo is also not a soapbox. The rules are not change article to article. Ruzgar 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. For the last time, stop pointing me to that article. I'm aware that the pictures are up, I think they should be removed, but there is strong opposition to do so is my guess. It seems that that article is an exception, but look at the Hamas article. Do you think it's ok if I slap an image of a dead body at the top, saying, "victims of the Palestinian terrorists?"
  2. Ok, let me put it this way: you've been reverted by about 5 different users. If I was in the same position, I wouldn't try to continue inserting it. —Khoikhoi 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Almost all articles about terrorist groups aren't going to have images demonizing the organization at the top. Look at Hezbollah—where are the dead babies in the article?


Khoikhoi you are realy a smart guy. First you said this has a copyright problem and with help of your admin friends you delete this photo without any reason. Then you said this photo is not "neutral". But you cant prove it. Now you are tring to use my muslim feelings. But that doesnt work on me my friend. You can freely add photos of Hamas in Hamas article. Because that is not a soapboxing.

And about the Armenian Genocide article I don't see your comments which supporting the removal of these photos in that article talk page. If you really wrote such a comment here please give a link. My friend why are you showing your "neutral" feeling only in Turkish related articles?

As I mentioned in the above this not a soapboxing or a propaganda. Unless you give a logic reason I add this photo and you cant do anything except vandalism. Ruzgar 16:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks please. You want the image up for the sole purpose of demonizing the PKK, and that's not going to happen. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 17:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you remember the photos from the 1990's of a Turkish soldier who, with a gloating look, holds the heads of two beheaded Kurdish guerillas? Should that photo, or other photos of Kurdish casualities be placed on the top of the Turkey or the Turkish Armed Forces article? Bertilvidet 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Is this the image you're talking about? —Khoikhoi 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. As from any armed conflict you can find lots of horrible images demonizing either side. Bertilvidet 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Asala + Armenian Link

I just read a book of Erhan Başyurt, which can be translated as "Adopted Armenian Orphins - Secret Lives" (ISBN 975-6054-26-3). In that book there's a section on relations between these secret Armenians living in Turkey and PKK / Abdullah Öcalan. Names of some active PKK terrorists of Armenian decent listed as well.

Some points in that book are interesting, like joint plans of carving Armenia and Kurdistan out of Turkey, PKK's increasing terrorist activities in northern east Anatolia towards old Armenian territories, cooperation for Ağrı and Dersim revolts during 20's and 30's... Support of Lebanese and Syrian Armenians...

I think this aspect of PKK should be added to the article. Does anybody else has sources on this relationship? --Gokhan 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be spelt "orphans" not "orphins." I wouldn't object to having such a section in this article, if the source it comes from is valid, of course. Hakob 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenian- PKK connection is partly a lie. Of course Armenia gives support to PKK but it can only be by funding PKK or by giving them political support in the world arena. Nothing more. Aremian PKK theory was created by people that want to show Kurdish minority innocent. They wanted to say "Look... Kurdish friends don't want to kill us, Armenians want to!". Sadly, some Turkish citizens believed in such lies. Nationalist MHP party used this propaganda to gain votes of Kurds too. Deliogul 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict in south-eastern Turkey

Go here. - FrancisTyers 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Terrorism

Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) is an internationally recognized "terrorist" organization aiming to destroy the authority of a unified democratic country, which cost more than 30.000 Turkish casualities. Stop sugarcoating it as a "militant" organization.

Fortunately, calling an organisation a terrorist is labeling and that is unacceptable in Wikipedia. The information about the casulities is also in the article. Users here try to be objective rather then force you to an opinion. Ozgur Gerilla 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states "The PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by a number of states and organisations, including the USA and the EU[1]" This is factual and not NPOV. That in my mind is sufficient. Let the facts speak for themselves. AndrewRT 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have always argued that facts should be included to articles. I have no problem with that sentence because it's a fact. But introducing the organisation as a "terrorist" rather then "militant" is an opinion and moreover not a good way to describe this organisation as some see them as freedom fighters. Ozgur Gerilla 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Every simple life form who sees PKK or KADEK or KONGRA-GEL whatsoever as freedom fighters is either a complete idiot without a single cell of neuron present in their body, or so ignorant that should not even talk about the topic before learning something about humanity or a terrorist him/herself. Can you imagine more than 30.000 casualities at once? Kertenkelebek(talk) 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not that idiot actually, they hope one day their sucking up to Europeans or Americans will result in some kind of country or land to them. Off course westerners in return want to settle their grudge towards us, so as we say in Turkish "Şıracının şahidi bozacı"... --Gokhan 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Which means they're so day-dreaming that simply collects them all under the same category as the first one mentioned above. :) KertenkelebekⓉ 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, why don't you two develop a website and share your ideas there because it's simply not logical to discuss your political opinions here. Ozgur Gerilla 02:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have time for that. Also, if it's pro-Turkish and against Kurds nobody reads them anyway... we're the bad people right? :) So instead I prefer to write comments in Wikipedia talk pages. That's more fun and fulfilling. But thanks for the nice idea. Maybe later. --Gokhan 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that we can conclude that the terrorist thing can be changed back into militant? It's pretty obvious that they're considered terrorists by most Western nations, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Please, let's preserve the neutrality of the article. --The Proletarian 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan be merged to Kurdistan Workers Party

The US for one considers them the same thing. So does Turkey, Iran, and perhaps a long list of countries. Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan is as independent as Congo is democratic.

Granted this (Kurdistan Workers Party) artcle is a mess... this merge would be a step in the right direction.

--Cat out 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Organizations might be separate structures albeit being politically connected. Its well possible to have separate articles for organizations related to PKK (like ERNK, ARGK, etc.) without necessarily making any statement as to imply any differentation of political line. --Soman 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the organisation can be explained with a paragraph, both PKK and it have the same objectives, follow the same guy, operate in the same region, use identical tactics etc... Even the flag is almost identical. --Cat out 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Not the same organisation and it is only a POV without facts to say that they are the same. Khorshid 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Different organisations. Does not matter whether they are closely affiliated. The situation is further explained in the text of the article Behemoth 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Notable differences. Ozgur Gerilla 22:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This will only help to decrease the number of armed militant Kurdish organizations in Wikipedia. --Gokhan 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose They're distinct Kurdish terrorist organizations nomatter how closely affiliated they are. For which they're expected to be affiliated since both are terrorist organizations. Kertenkelebek(talk) 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the PJAK is a distinct political and armed force, they may share some aspects of logistics, however many independence movements do the same, as do many countries, are the US and UK one?

Only PKK has been identified as terrorist, not PJAK. Khorshid 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, we all know what they really are. However thanks to Wikipedia policies we cannot mention them as terrorists in the articles... we are allowed to use only "militant". It's really a disgrace for the real militant organizations... --Gokhan 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really, because introducing an organisation as 'terrorist' is the point of view of the editor and 'militant' isn't. Readers get to decide what the organisation is by reading the article and its history. Ozgur Gerilla 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes but this is only a talk page so don't worry. --Gokhan 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The talk page is here for us to "worry" about the article. Ozgur Gerilla 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes thanks. But I meant -> don't worry about PKK being called terrorist here. It's not possible to put it in the article anyway. Unfortunately. --Gokhan 12:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what you know is true matey. Ozgur Gerilla 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish racism

PKK has nothing to do with socialism. They receive support from US (weapon and ammunation trade) and Northern Iraqi feudal lords.

and receiving support from US and Northern Iraqi feudal lords has nothing to do with a social system. Ozgur Gerilla 10:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

plus greece,plus noth cyprus, plus syria, plus Armenia...

anon user, you probably mean south cyprus, not north.. because north is Turkish :) --Gokhan 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the photo of killed babies..

Even in italy there was an advertisement in television showing killed baby by PKK and saying at the end "dont put blood on your spagettii". All of us know PKK is terorist organisation and attacked many vileages and killed many people over there. So where are the truths in this stupid article!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have many pictures which have copyrigth. Why are you removing?? Dont be shame because you are kurdish! Removing these picture means you are supporter of PKK. and it also means you are terrorist. And it means you are murder.

Times like this I wish there was no personal attack policy in Wikipedia so that I could clearly express my feelings on your comment. Ozgur Gerilla 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Over 35.000 people have been killed... PKK (freedom fighters !!!) still continues their attacks in eastern Turkey. I know wikipedia has to be neutral on everything, but when it comes to something sensitive like this you can't be neutral. OzgurGerilla or freeMilitant or whatever, i want you to be candidate of Sakharov Prize. with this effort and support to pkk, i'm sure you will get it from eu within years. (no offense)

Have you ever questioned why are they attacking? have you ever read Ismail Besikcis books? Lutfen, burdaki tartismalarinda kanit gosterirsen cok iyi olur; tartismalarina girerken ezbere konusmasan cok iyi olur burda insanlar ogrenmeye geliyor, kendini gelistirmeye hakarete ugramaya diyil. Ozgur Gerilla 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Herifler terorist de ondan! Cocuk, bebek, kadin olduruyorlar! Bunun bir bahanesi olabilir mi? Armanalp 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read about Turkish Independence War? Ayrica Turkcen cok kotu. Profilindeki anadili Turkcedir maddesi dogru degil. Su yazdigin cumlelerde en az on tane hata var. Millete "sunu yapsan cok iyi olur, bunu yapsan cok iyi olur" kivaminda ayar vermeyi deneyecegine once adam gibi Turkce ogren. Dilini bile bilmedigin bir toplumu neden sahiplendigin ve koru korune savunman, teroristine bile sahip cikman aslinda kolayca aciklanabilecek bir durum. Genclik hezeyanlari, dusuk zeka duzeyinin insana verdigi cesaret vs...85.99.81.148 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bir toplumu sahiplenmek gibi bir amacim yok. Ben o toplumda olusan sorunlari burada aciklamaya gayret gosteriyorum hem bir toplumun sorunlarini anlamak icin dilini bilmek gerekmiyor. Cunki sosyal sorunlarin cogu fiziksel iletisim halinde olusur. Gencligimi tartismalarinda kullanmanda senin acizligini gostertir. Ideolojik dogruluk ile dil arasinda kurdugun bag senin hakkinda bir aciklik verir. Esas konuyu saptirip onyargi ile olayi bana cevirmekde yobazlikdir. Umit ederim, bir gun insanlara musamaha gostermenin faydalarindan yararlanirsin. Sonucta, senin Turkcede mukemmel degil :). Ozgur Gerilla 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No reasons can be an excuse for killing civilians (mainly Kurds) on purpose. Nobody has the right to say "we are killing civilians, torturing our own members but we have reasons for attacking".Ozgur please have a look at the Amnesty International or HRW records. --Hattusili 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International criticizes both PKK and the Turkish Government! I know PKK isn't 100% pure and I am ready to criticise it. But it does stand for something in the Kurdish struggle, this implies, the difference between me and you guys; that I argue with no previous knowledge effecting my argument. If there is no excuse for killing civilians why don't you users who attack the PKK and the Kurdish people criticise your Army and Government who declares an ethnic group as terrorists. Ignorance, Ignorance. Ozgur Gerilla 11:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


The resource section requires an update

Turkey now allows Kurdish language channels, and state sponsored broadcasts are currantly being broadcast. A new bill was past allowing private broadcast as well,

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D4687417-BAB7-426A-9F30-8D16A9DEE206.htm

Its not enough but its a move in the right direction.. Personally I think this is Turkey best strategy for weakening the PKK, by treating the Kurds fairly, and reconising their identy.

[edit] The intro needs emphasis on terrorism

It's POV to arrange the words that way you did. It's much better to just state what the organization is, their goals, etc. And then talk about it's terrorist activies and the effect it's had in the past years. Please, just leave it the way it is. —Khoikhoi 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to represent the organization and the goals, and only then mentioning its terrorist activities. It is mainly a terrorist organization, and only after saying it you should explain the goals, history and political actions. --Gabi S. 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a terrorist organization in the eyes of the various governments, but keep in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. —Khoikhoi 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for you, I'll say it again: It is misleading to represent the organization and the goals, and only then mentioning its "freedom fighting" activities. It is mainly a "freedom fighting" organization (although seen otherwise by the US and the EU), and only after saying it you should explain the goals, history and political actions. --Gabi S. 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, and I never said that I see it as a freedom fighting organization. It's not misleading at all, but we don't want to sway to one POV or the other. Why should we have the government view go first? Do governments reflect worldwide view? No, not necessarily. Most Kurds aren't going to say PKK is a terrorist organizaiton. And BTW, why aren't these same standards applied to Lehi, for example?? —Khoikhoi 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that Kurds don't understand that the PKK is carrying out attacks that are seen as terrorism to outside observers? I think they understand. And you are completely wrong about Lehi and Etzel (aka Irgun). Every Israeli school textbooks describes these groups as "underground" terrorist organizations, and their actions as terrorism. This is also how they were seen by most of the Jewish population at that time. I have at home, for example, a book with sharp critisism of the King David bombing by Nathan Alterman, a leading figure at that time. Lehi and Etzel were terrorist organizations, as today are Hamas, Hezbollah, DFLP, PFLP, and many others. Yes, I support explicit designation of terrorist groups as such. To think that it's not NPOV is, in my opinion, a distortion of what NPOV was supposed to be. --Gabi S. 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course they do, but that doesn't mean we have to state it right at the beginning. As for Irgun, why is it that people are always trying to push the fact that people were warned before the King David Hotel bombing went off? What about the group that trys to prove that they weren't terrorists? As for Hezbollah (which doesn't even have the word "terrorist" in the intro), who do you think the Lebanese is getting aid from to help rebuild their homes? Just a bunch of terrorists.
No, it's not a distortion NPOV, it's a version of an article that lets the reader decide for themselves how they want to classify the PKK, not it a way were it's shoved in their faces. —Khoikhoi 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely preposterous. NPOV in wikipedia is having no political view on the subject. Calling an organisation a terrorist or a freedom fighter is having an opinion on the matter. Governments do not reflect all views and that's the best source people give who argue that these organisations are terrorist. Hezbollah and PKK aren't terrorist for many and many believe Turkey, USA, UK, Israel are state terrorist these are all opinions and NPOV is putting these all in the articles when describing peoples thoughts on the organisations. it's a good method used not to shove an opinion into users faces. Ozgur Gerilla 20:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shove into users faces, ah? Did you look lately in Nakba or countless other articles that push an agenda while trying to look NPOV? That's that way it's done, and it needs to be done in the case of PKK. Otherwise you misrepresent them as a quiet political group that only several lines down the road happens to be called "terrorist" by "negligible" entities like the US and the EU. I think that my sentence order change was justified, and will do it again soon. --Gabi S. 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, what's so bad about the Nakba article? Am I missing something here? I still fail to see how we are "misrepresenting" the PKK by not saying terrorist right near the very beginning. A bunch of governments recognize them as such, so what? Because of this, they therefore represent a worldwide point of view, or neutral point of view for that matter? BTW, have you seen the Al-Qaeda article? They mention the countries that recognize it as terrorist in the last sentence of the intro... —Khoikhoi 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's amazing! I also saw the Hamas entry that mentions terrorism only halfway through the article, after a detailed explanation of its non-terrorist activities. It's very frustrating. I can't fight it, but I know that something is very wrong with this situation. There must be some way within the NPOV limits that allows clear categorization of good and bad. --Gabi S. 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be a recent change. It used to say it in the first paragrpah for awhile, but I personally think it should be in the 2nd or 3rd. I guess sometimes people can take things too far, but I still believe that it's POV have something like this. Do you think these children and their parents see the PKK as a terrorist organization, when they have banners of Abdullah Öcalan in their hand? My guess that they wouldn't be supporting Öcalan if they thought so. —Khoikhoi 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gabi, how about making the word Terrorist larger, change the colour and add italics to it to catch the readers eyes. Oh you know what would be cool? Having Öcalans picture and the word Terrorist animated. That would be so innovative. Ozgur Gerilla 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be funny if people lives were not involved. Since terrorists deliberatly attack unarmed and unprepared civilians, I would prefer the NPOV norm to be something like this:
Group X is a terrorist group... etc etc... Controversary: Some people claim that group X is just a political party / humanitarian aid group / whatever they call it... etc
Rather than this:
Group X is a political party / humanitarian aid group / whatever they call it... etc etc... oh, by the way, the US and some other loonies call them terrorists.
Am I asking for too much? --Gabi S. 09:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed you are asking for too much. Because introducing an organisation as "militant" is giving the reader a fact but instead saying "terrorist" or "freedom fighting" group then that is an absolute POV. I think that is the point you need to undertand. Ozgur Gerilla 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but I see a contradiction between NPOV and clear facts. Striving for NPOV makes it undesirable to tell the readers, for example, that a certain group usually sends suicide bombers to kill unsuspecting civilians, even if it's the most important thing to know. Maybe I'm just fantasizing on a better world, where such distinctions are not contradictory. --Gabi S. 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See that is looking at it from one angle. The fact is that many see groups such as this one as freedom fighters and provide facts such as the Semdinli bombing. Now just because of that people cannot go on the Turkish armys article and vandalise the page. Same goes for people who argue that it's a terrorist organisation. It's a Wikipedia rule we obey it. If you would like to take action I suggest you contact admin members. Ozgur Gerilla 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone has been adding their two cents in, I thought I would add mine... I am just going to make a proposal, tell me what u think.. What if we mentioned the definition of terrorism under international law (i don't have it at hand, but i will get back with it tomorrow) which basicly states that killing civilians and attacking civilian infrastructure for the aim of inducing fear is terrorism, BUT attacking the armed personnel of a country (police, army) cannot be in itself considered terrorism.. Sooo, I am suggesting that we try this... Intro, we keep the militant def, than right after a controversy section followed by this definition and a statement, approximately as PKK has been recognized as terrorist by many countries because of its targeting of civilian targets, but PKK maintains that these were part of a much wider conflict with TR State.. Since 2004, PKK has been refraining from attacking civilian targets and concentrating on attacks and low-intensity conflict with Turkish armed personnel to address these concerns, nevertheless there have been incidents where civilians were dragged into conflicts (bombings etc.) since then, which makes the controversy surrounding the definition of the nature of PKK's activities extremely difficult to establish.. and blah blah.. Of course citations will be needed at every other word, and the text will be proofread a hundred times, but u got the meaning of the text... Just brainstorming... So what do you think? Baristarim 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think what you wrote could go to the main part of the article. Because the main part of the article is to introduce the organisation and you only wrote the bombings and not the reasons- not the PKK aspect therefore that sentence wouldn't be appropriate in the main section. Your description isn't bad and can go under something else in the article. Ozgur Gerilla 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you misunderstood me.. It was very late at night when I wrote it so, it might seem confusing.. :)) I didn't suggest that we put what I wrote in the intro.. I meant that we keep the intro with the militant word, and in a section close to the top (if it were at the bottom, it would be akin to claiming that such a controversy didn't exist), we put a section titled controversy / controversy surrounding the nature of PKK / Historical controversy about the nature of the PKK (or a neutral title introducing the said controversy) followed by the definition of terrorism under intl law, and what I wrote above in the body so it would look like something like this:


The Kurdistan Workers Party (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan or PKK, Turkish: Kürdistan İşçi Partisi), also known as KADEK and Kongra-Gel, is a militant group, whose stated aim is to create an independent Kurdish state in a territory (sometimes referred to as Kurdistan) that consists of parts of south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Iraq, north-ea...

...

Controversy (or whatever) (Being the First or Second Section after the Intro, that could be discussed)

The definition given by the United Nations Convention X, Y, Z (I still didn't have the time to check this out, but I am 100 percent sure of its existence) on terrorism is the killing of civilians and attacks on civilian infrastructure for the aim of inducing fear, but the sole act of attacking the armed personnel of a country (police, army) cannot be in itself considered terrorism. (With a source link to this Convention)

PKK has been recognized as terrorist by many countries because of its targeting of civilian targets, but PKK maintains that these were part of a much wider conflict with the TR State.. Since 2004, PKK has been refraining from attacking civilian targets and concentrating on attacks and low-intensity conflict with Turkish armed personnel to address these concerns, nevertheless there have been incidents where civilians were dragged into these conflicts (bombings etc.) since then, which makes the controversy surrounding the definition of the nature of PKK's activities (extremely) difficult to establish.. (again blah, blah, it would have to be proofread and copy-edited and citations added)

So do you see the spirit of what I am trying to say? There can be another section before/afterwards presenting the historical background of the conflict and/or the claims of both sides as to what they reproach to each other and etc and etc.. Again I am still in the brainstorming stages for this.. I also would like the views and opinions of many people about this, preferably no-one from the Eastern-Mediterranean just to see what they would make out of it.. It's not that I don't value your opinion Ozgur Gerilla, or that of Turks or Kurds, but I really think that we need some outside look on this matter to help us with achieving a greater degree of neutrality that can be expected from an encyclopedic entry.. Kind of like having the China-Japan wars having commented or analyzed by South Americans.. It seems that no-one that is not a Turk or Kurd has made extensive contributions to this article, sadly...

I will be very busy this week, but after I am going to make a suggestion for a complete change in the structure of the article to increase its neutrality and copy-editing of the said sections (of course 100 percent neutrality is a utopia :)).. I just think that we need a better article that is worthy of being called encyclopedic.. Baristarim 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really like your idea of adding the 'Controversy' section to the article and I think it should be at the top because there is a lot of arguing going on which leads to vandalizing and a lot of reverts - I am sure many would be satisfied with this section. But I strongly disagree with your preference for Turks-Kurds not contributing to this particular section. Don't take it wrong but I also find it funny you making it personal because though I am ethnically mostly Kurdish my nationality is British. You may think I am bias because of my ethnicity but isn't that prejudice? May I also tell you that the most you could do is ask people to not contribute to the article but I don't think all will obey. There is actually some non-Turkish/Kurdish people that have made extensive contributions to this article. What I suggest we do about this matter (Controversy, Section) is open a poll (or whatever it's called in Wiki) and find a democratic solution. What do you think? Ozgur Gerilla 00:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 :))) I am sorry man, that's not what I meant... I didn't want to imply that u or any Kurd-Turk wouldn't be able to objective.. No disrespect, I also didn't mean to say that u would be biased because of your ethnicity.. U know, sometimes when you can only communicate by writing without being able to use tones etc, some things get lost, lost in translation :)... All I was trying to say was, if we could get some more contribution from others, we could end up with an article that would have less heat... On the other hand, I like the idea of a poll, but unfortunately I am kinda new to Wikipedia and I don't know how it would work. But I will have a look and get back. Cheers!! Baristarim 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently all you have to do to create a poll is create a section (with two =) and create two subsections (with 3 =) called "support" and "oppose" so people could put their names there but then I found out that Wikipedia:Voting is evil. I think we should find a better way to sort this out. Ozgur Gerilla 11:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Propaganda

The whole world considers pkk as a terrorist group and there is no need to any discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E104421 (talk • contribs) .

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. —Khoikhoi 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i cant believe this. this page becomes a terror page. there is no other country in the world which gave 30000 death to pkk terror. killing is not an information, you cant kill people by writing but u can do terrorist propaganda by writing

[edit] Syntax and Lack of Clarity

Apparently this article needs a second look for copy-editing and syntax corrections... Hopefully I will do it this week when I have the time... Can the person(s) that have added the information on the Effects section contact me with their original sources?? They seem to be translated directly from Turkish (or some other language).. That's ok, but the article seriously lacks clarity and fluidity.. It took me ages to understand what this section was trying explain.. If the person(s) who put it up can give me their original text in Turkish (if it is in Turkish obviously, if it is German I can't help :)), I am willing to have a closer look to enhance the clarity of its translation (I am not saying that anyone is a bad translator, I just would like to have a look at it to see if a better translation is possible :))). Cheers! Baristarim 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capture

It states that Ocalan was captured by a joint Turkish, CIA and Mossad operation. Given the unpopularity of the CIA and Mossad in the Muslim world that should either be supported by a citation or listed as 'allegably'. 145.253.108.22 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I submit to the community some small reshaping of the introduction, which basically only concerns the order of presentation of fact (with the addition of some links to related important articles, and putting in context the insurgency (Tazmaniacs):


"The Kurdistan Workers Party (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan or PKK, Turkish: Kürdistan İşçi Partisi), also known as KADEK and Kongra-Gel, is a militant group founded in the 1970s and led, until his capture in 1999, by Abdullah Öcalan. Its stated aim is to create a democratic and independent Kurdish state in a territory — which it claims as Kurdistan — that consists of parts of south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Iraq, north-eastern Syria and north-western Iran. Its ideological foundation is revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and Kurdish nationalism; however, since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has somehow reduced its insistence on Marxism. It is an ethnic secessionist organization that uses force and the threat of force against both civilian and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal. The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization internationally by a number of states and organizations, including the USA and the EU,[1] and Turkey blames it for the death of more than 30,000 people. The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) based in northern Iraq and operating in Iran is associated with the PKK.

Since its creation in the 1970s, amid violent clashes in the whole of Turkey which culminated in the 1980 military coup, the PKK has developed into a paramilitary organization which rendered much of southeastern Turkey a war zone in the late 1980s and 1990s. Its actions have taken place mainly in Turkey and against Turkish targets in other countries, although it has on occasions co-operated with other Kurdish nationalist paramilitary groups in neighbouring states, such as Iraq and Iran.[2] The PKK argued that its violent actions were justified by the need to defend Kurds in the context of what it considered as the massive cultural suppression of Kurdish identity (including the 1983 Turkish Language Act Ban) and cultural rights carried out by the governments of the region. However, in its campaign, the PKK has been accused of carrying out atrocities against both Turkish and Kurdish civilians and its actions have been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Actions of the Turkish state in the past have also been criticised by these same groups. In effet, the Turkish state has led a serie of counter-insurgency operations against the PKK, accompanied by political measures, starting with an explicit denounciation of separatism in the 1982 Constitution, and including proclamation of the state of emergency in various PKK-controlled territories starting in 1983 (when the military relinquished political control to the civilians). This serie of administrative reforms against terrorism included in 1985 the creation of village guards, paramilitaries led by Turgut Özal. All in all, this low intensity conflict which has been lasting since more than thirty years has had a number of effects in the Turkish territory. Furthermore, this conflict is an important part concerning the negotiations between Turkey and the European Union (EU) about its eventual integration to the EU.

The degree of support for the PKK among Turkish Kurds is disputed: In some of the strongholds of Kurdish nationalism in the Tigris valley and mountainous regions on the Iranian border, PKK-linked parties have consistently polled close to or over 50% of votes cast in elections. However, PKK-linked parties have polled at most approximately one-third of the Kurdish vote (between 5% and 8% of the total Turkish vote), with the majority of Kurds voting for mainstream parties. In some of the more assimilated Kurdish areas, claimed by the PKK as being part of 'Kurdistan', support for PKK-linked parties is at 10% or less. There is some electoral support for PKK-linked parties among Kurdish migrants in cities in Western and Southern Turkey such as Adana, Mersin and İzmir.(Turkish General Election Results 2002. Retrieved on November 3, 2002.)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tazmaniacs (talk • contribs).

Ok, will take a look. The intro needs to be worked on a bit more. Btw, I left a small note on your talk page about the latest addition. Nothing big, just a couple of thoughts. Cheers! Baristarim 08:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine with me, there are two or three simple grammar syntax edits, but no biggie :) However, the only thing that might need to be mentioned in a sentence or two is the fact the capture of Ocalan and its effects whereby it brought a huge decrease in conflict in six-seven years following his capture, and that some activity has been picking up since the Iraq war. But I like the intro, no problems. Let's see what others think. Baristarim 09:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sure we could really improve the introduction, and intros are important. We need to give a quick global picture of the thing. Creating a Turkish-Kurdish conflict article would also greatly help, wouldn't it? Tazmaniacs
Good work Tazmaniacs. This is a good starting point for a neutral lead to the article. And with so sensitive articles its best to reach some consensus. However, I believe it is quite long time ago that PKK abandoned the idea of a separate Kurdish state as official policy. Their rhetorics now so more focus on democratic rights, presentation in the Turkish parliament, recognition of cultural rights etc. Also the formulation PKK-linked parties might be slightly problematic, as any party linked to the PKK are shut down immediately. Pro-Kurdish might be better, albeit vague. Bertilvidet 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :)! Actually, you surely are more competent than me regarding these questions, why don't you take some time when you have some to improve this draft? We're not in a hurry (although if no one has time to improve it, and if we have approval, I would already make this first change for a start)... Tazmaniacs 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this draft could still be improved, I will edit it now since there has seem to be no opposition to it. Teshikur! Tazmaniacs 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new article?

I am ashamed of my earlier proposal concerning the creation of a new article. How about Turkish-Kurdish issues, Turkish-Kurdish relations or Kurdish issues in Turkey ? Tazmaniacs

There are quite a lot of issues at stake here, which deserve articles. I believe a high priority should be an article about the "thing" that happened 1884/1999. Some refer to it as a civil war, some as a fight against terrorism. Some wording including conflict would probably be the most neutral. But then, Kurdish issues in Turkey seems like something different. Do we think of cultural and language rights etc? Then it would maybe be more adequate with a more general minority rights in Turkey article. Bertilvidet 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think minority rights in Turkey is a good place to go, and it could make a sub-article of human rights in Turkey (a classic name for other such articles, see human rights in the United States, etc.). "Terrorism" is for me out of the question, and "civil war" is also a bit strong (and would involve the whole country, including Ankara and Istanbul). Beside, if you see the discussion concerning the so-called "Dirty War" in Argentina, you will see that calling this a "war" poses a number of juridical problems (first of all, the impossibility to judge responsibles of human rights violations except the highest hierarchy, as acts committed during a war under military hierarchy are covered by the laws of war). "Conflict" is certainly better, but I'm against Turkish-Kurdish conflict as it tends to support the controversial thesis of a "civilization clash" (at least, of an "ethnic clash"). I don't claim there is no ethnic issues (that would be ridiculous), but I dislike putting up two cultural groups one against the others in such a massive way. I fear such an article would accredit both the PKK's independentist discourse and the Turkish nationalist discourse, ignoring moderates on both side (or simply people who don't care, although they're might not be many - a few apolitic exilees who try to forget all of this?). That is why I proposed "issue", it sounds to me more NPOV. The problem with "minority rights" is that it does not explicitly refers to the conflict, which "issues" does in a kind of diplomatic-like language. Of course, PKK and the Turkish state is also possible, but this would leave out other Kurdish groups. Kurdish conflict in the South-East of Turkey would be acceptable, I think, but would refers only to military operations over there. Another issue would be simply Human rights in Turkey, although it would not directly refer to the conflict (I do think we need a specific article for the conflict). Another, last solution I can think of would be to adress directly Kurdish issues in an international manner, allowing for subsections according to each state (Turkey, Iran, Irak), which might be, after all, the best issue (although I already hear the cries of nationalists and the pseudo-accusations of support to the Kurds, it would allow for a better understanding of Kurdish matters). What do you folks believe? Tazmaniacs 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged relation with PEJAK

See Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Furthermore, even if you do find some reliable sources supporting this assertion, I doubt it should be included in the introduction as the latter doesn't treat of international relations. Inserting it in the body of the entry would be more logical.

"The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) based in northern Iraq and operating in Iran is associated with the PKK."

Thanks, Tazmaniacs 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "PKK-linked parties"

This phrase is clearly POV and should be reworded in the introduction. Whether various incarnations of Kurdish parties such as DEHAP and HADEP are "PKK-linked" is very much contested. They themselves claim to have no link with the PKK, the Turkish government and prosecutors have claimed that they do, and international human rights associations and independent researchers generally believe that, while certain individuals within these parties may be sympathetic to the PKK, there has been little or no official contact between these parties' leaderships and that of the PKK (cf. MacDowall, "Modern History of Kurds"; Olson (ed.), "The Kurdish Nationalist Movement in the 1990s"; Barkey, "Turkey's Kurdish Question").--Jsorens 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The fact is the parties have policies which Kurds vote for; some of their voters might also support PKK, but why should this reflect on the party? I do not think they should be in this section at all. Is everything connected with Kurds in Turkey to be seen as PKK-linked? 81.174.159.170 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Roj NV & Denmark"

The point being made here is that Denmark is accused of supporting the PKK. I don't see why to bring Roj NV into it. There was an investigation into Roj NV made by Belgian authorities - prompted by Turkey's propaganda - which ultimately did not find sufficient evidence of a link with PKK to rule there was one. Turkey had not been able to substantiate its allegations. Furthermore stating "in violation of Turkish domestic law" makes it sound like that means something! A Danish-established satellite company only needs to comply with Danish law, EU law and international law. Turkish domestic law doesn't come into it, the same way it doesn't come into BBC broadcasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Ifonlyalabama 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)81.174.159.170 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

At least be man enough to sign your comment, especially when you keep saying Turkish propaganda. Many European countries banned Roj TV. Korrybean 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now signed the comment, which had been left unsigned in error. No country has ever banned Roj TV. --Ifonlyalabama 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdist Support of the Pkk

"The degree of support for the PKK among Turkish Kurds is disputed: In some of the strongholds of Kurdish nationalism in the Tigris valley and mountainous regions on the Iranian border, pro-Kurdish parties have consistently polled close to or over 50% of votes cast in elections. However, Kurdish parties have polled at most approximately one-third of the Kurdish vote (between 5% and 8% of the total Turkish vote), with the majority of Kurds voting for mainstream parties. In some of the more assimilated Kurdish areas, claimed by the PKK as being part of 'Kurdistan', support for Kurdish parties is at 10% or less. There is some electoral support for these parties among Kurdish migrants in cities in Western and Southern Turkey such as Adana, Mersin and İzmir."

This part has nothing to do with PKK or Kurdish support for PKK. This is merely for support of democratic Kurdish political parties. This section is not about PKK at all, therefore should be deleted Korrybean 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight and terrorism

I recently reverted an edit of new user Semiramiscan. He has left two posts about the issue on my talkpage (for those who care).

Personally I don't see much of a difference either way, because who considers the PKK terrorists is already mentioned in the second paragraph (sayfanın ikinci paragrafını okuyunuz - şimdi iyi midir?). The way I understand it, Semiramiscan wants to move it to the first paragraph straight after the "militant" definition. Does anyone have a problem with that? An obvious benefit I can think of is that it may reduce the volume of anon vandalism to the article.--Domitius 20:44, 9 March 2007

I had a look at the WP:WTA yet I also have read the artic about us being entitled to ignore the rules of wikipedia. Thus I personally consider mentioning the PKK is a terrorist organization. I have plenty of reasons for this statement; 1-) PKK militants have killed more than 200,000 people (including civils and military). Battling with the military can be considered as a terorrist action. 2-) The leader of the PKK is sentenced for life for forming a teroor organizaiton. 3-)The PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by a number of states and organisations, including the USA and the EU. 4-)The family of victims of these killing would be highly offended 5-)The aim of the pkk is creation of a new country on the lands of Turkey which is a Terrorist action --Semiramiscan 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These are your opinions, and thus not compatible with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Also please be careful to read the text, so that you do not end up entering repetitions of something that already is stated. And also be aware of WP:3RR. Bertilvidet 09:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Not even Turkey claims that PKK militants have killed more than 200,000 people! 2) The leader of the PKK is sentenced for life by Turkish domestic courts in a trial that was ruled incompatible with international human rights law and unfair by the European Court of Human Rights, which also held he should receive another trial. 5) The PKK used to have separatist aims however these are no longer its stated aims. --User: ifonlyalabama

If a person kills someone, it is called murder, if a lot of people kills a lot of people it's either called terrorism or genocide. Since PKK is not a government it cannot be genocide. Thus it deifintely is terrorism. Besides Al Queda militans doesn't refer Al Queada as a terror organization hence it is not compatitable with WP:NPOV. --Semiramiscan 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I would like to propose that this article be moved to "PKK".. The most common name for it in the English language is via its acroynm, and like ETA, it should be there since it is originally a non-English name. As far as IRA is concerned, IRA is actually a disambiguation page, and the article is at Irish Republican Army, but that is a English language acronym to begin with. Baristarim 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is, "ETA" is not at "Basque Homeland and Freedom", basically... Baristarim 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea that would get over the possessive problem too. - Francis Tyers · 09:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
ETA should be a redirect to Basque Homeland and Freedom just like PKK should redirect to Kurdistan Workers Party. El_C 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page from further pages moves (but not editing) until there's a firm consensus here on where you all want the page to reside. Drop by WP:RFPP when your ready for the page to be unlocked and explain (in detail) the situation. -- Nick t 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Table"

I oppose this table based on Turkish government sources. The idea that you can "summarise" the activities with a table and "ticks" is incorrect. - Francis Tyers · 09:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


It does not claim to summarise everything. Are you suggesting that PKK has not done them? It gives information, should stay. And what is wrong with Turkish government sources, they are valid sources, the people who died, have died, and they are claimed by PKK. I do not understand your reverts here and in the list of casualties. You are removing useful and well referenced things. denizTC 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/u/r/Talk%7EKurdistan_Workers_Party_ce14.html"