Talk:Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge 2 Maoist 3 is what kucinich has not done an NPOV fact unless someone external has researched or claimed this? 4 Moved passage concerning alleged ties with PKK

[edit] Merge

PJAK is not political wing of PKK. It looks to PKK and Ocalan for inspiration and is allied with them, but is an independent and separate group. Khorshid 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ... --Cat out 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat, do you have any sources that say this? —Khoikhoi 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Not the same organisation. Khorshid 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose They are different

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.58.223 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 June 2006.

The merge was proposed on 19 June 2006 by cool cat. On this page i see only oppose, and on Talk:Kurdistan_Workers_Party#Party_for_a_Free_Life_in_Kurdistan_be_merged_to_Kurdistan_Workers_Party i see only oppose. So i'm about to remove the merge tag. If someone has verifiable, external evidence that the two organisations are essentially the same thing (not just closely related), then i suggest you present that evidence on one of the two discussion pages (maybe PJAK since the discuss page is less busy) and see if other people agree that that is NPOV. Boud 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maoist

"These words are not quite coded speech, but they are PJAK's way of batting its eyelashes at the United States, of implying that the world's superpower and this ornery Maoist gang might find common cause against Tehran."

"PJAK fled to the Qandils in 2004, under the mistaken impression that Iran would not hunt down its members if they were on Iraqi land. They joined members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (known as PKK), the Maoist rebel force that for more than a decade has been fighting Turkey."

[1]

Both PJAK and PKK are Maoist and have same roots (but are separate organisatios). DO NOT remove proper citations because of your POV. Even PJAK and PKK literature state these things. Khorshid 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"PKK is Maoist" Wrong! "PJAK is Maoist" Wrong, again! PKK used to consider the Soviet Union as a socialist country until its collapse. This is the bigotish reporter stance that considers all Marxist organisations that wage "people's war" as Maoist. This is somewhat akin with the common American attitude that deems everything left-wing as "communist". PKK never defined itself as Maoist nor expressed a sympathy for China. There is a whole PKK (and also PJAK) literature if you care to look at. The Maoist Kurdish organisations in Turkey was Kawa and then Dengê Kawa to which PKK has maintained no links. Please care to make a more thorough research before you involve in an argument. See also: International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter) and Revolutionary Internationalist Movement Ciao! --Behemoth 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV. This reporter lived with PJAK for some time in the mountains and spoke to their leaders. He is sympathetic to them. And the article meets WP:V. The burden is on you my friend. Allez ciao! Khorshid 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is what kucinich has not done an NPOV fact unless someone external has researched or claimed this?

Someone put the sentence:

However, Mr. Kucinich has not offered evidence to support his opinions.

This might be true, but for anyone to verify this, s/he would have to search Kucinich's entire record of public statements. Since he is a member of the US parliament, i.e. a politician successful enough to be elected, analysing the complete body of his public statements (parliamentary speeches, interviews in the media, other public speeches, statements made in committees and so on which later are published, online or offline, texts that he has written, offline and online, etc.) would constitute the task of a dedicated researcher carrying out a lot of work. Even sifting through his online statements alone would require someone to spend a good deal of time studying Kucinich in order to be sure that he has not provided evidence for his claims.

There could be someone, e.g. in a Political Science department in a university who finds Kucinich to be a sufficiently important person for carrying out this research. If this (or something similar) is the case, then please give us the citation.

Alternatively, it could be possible that someone notable (let's say John Smith, with no offence intended to real John Smiths...) has claimed that Kucinich did not offer evidence to support his opinions. If that's the case, then please give the citation and we'll NPOV the sentence to reflect this, also removing the weasel word "However" i.e.

[[John Smith]] expressed doubt about Kucinich's claims, stating that Mr. Kucinich did not offer evidence to support his opinions.<ref>...</ref>

Boud 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved passage concerning alleged ties with PKK

Please find reliable sources before inserting this passage again, in accordance with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Thanks.

PJAK allegedly cooperates with the PKK and is accused of being the "Iran branch" of the PKK ^{[citation needed]}.
Relation to PKK PJAK is closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in the United States and as a terrorist organisation by the European Union [ref: note that this ref does not support the alleged tie with PKK, or I missed something, and it should clearly states where it is to be found: Council Common Position 2004/500/CESP of 17 May 2004, Council of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, May 17, 2004

Tazmaniacs 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)