From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Village guard system article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Village guard system:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Moving content 1.2 Sources 1.3 Counter Terrorism unit 1.4 On the use of Kurdistan 1.5 NPOV 1.5.1 UK Parliament

[edit] Comments

[edit] Moving content

Some stuff moved from the Kurdistan Workers Party article. - FrancisTyers 21:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Inheritely a very bad idea. I see this as POV pushing nothing more, at least the way its presented and the way its kept away from PKK article. I consider creating remote articles and seperating material from original article when a discussion is not concluded. -- Cat ^chi? 11:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the way the article is current may be POV (but no more than your PKK article), I have tried to use neutral sources (something you haven't done). This article was created because:

1. Our discussion was getting nowhere.
2. I think it deserves a separate article, maybe with a more clear name, but a separate article nevertheless.
3. I would be open to a remerge if you thought it wise, but I don't know where a section on the village guard system would go in an article on the PKK.
4. I fail to see how this article is remote. We have articles on other paramilitary groups.

If you consider that I'm just POV pushing, please make an issue of it, as that is definately not my intention. - FrancisTyers 18:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

http://www.cfr.org/pub5714/arthur_c_helton_gil_loescher/turkey_prepares_for_a_refugee_influx_from_iraq.php

Village guards are mainly Kurdish paramilitaries armed and paid by the Turkish government to fight the PKK, the Turkish Kurdish guerrillas.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turkey0305/1.htm

Village guards—paramilitaries, usually Kurdish, armed and paid by the government to fight the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, now known as Kongra Gel)—have not been disarmed, and are implicated in attacks on returning IDPs. Regular security forces have also committed extrajudicial executions of IDPs.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/f0a5070f846ad11c802567890036f7f2?Opendocument

Turkey: "village guards" which are described as "a paramilitary force set up to act as a local militia against the PKK" (see AI INDEX: EUR 44/66/92 of August 1992 at page 1; the PKK is the Kurdish Workers' Party);

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/balkans/bc2f15p3.htm

[...] assisted by the Village Guards—a tough, pro-government Kurdish militia. The PKK has always despised the Village Guards as traitors and had them marked for execution, even slaughtering their wives and children until a few years back

[edit] Counter Terrorism unit

The unit was intended to be a counter terror unit, they cannot be defined by corruption etc. This is pov. All sources are non govermental including www.nwc.navy.mil which only has a collection of news articles. No primary sources what so ever. -- Cat ^chi? 07:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Added terrorists to who they are fighting against. I would like to get my hands on a document published by the Turkish Parliament in 1995 called "A report into unresolved political killings" (or something similar) as this is referenced in a number of my sources, but unfortunately can't find it on the internet. Perhaps with your Turkish contacts you will have more luck? - FrancisTyers 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I dont have many contacts, they are "boring" engineers anyways :). Ill look in to the matter. I know (and every one knows) not all villige guards were "good", that does not mean they were all "bad". Article establishes all villige guards as "bad", which isnt right. -- Cat ^chi? 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The article no-where says that all village guards are bad, it explicitly says that "some" are bad. Which is true. I may try to make this more obvious. The idea of village guards was bad, the Turkish military said so, giving arms to unaccountable paramilitaries is a bad idea I think you'll agree. - FrancisTyers 11:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the use of Kurdistan

• An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia. [1]
• ...northern Iran and Iraq and eastern Turkey, with the adjacent regions of the U.S.S.R. (the area being collectively known as Kurdistan)... [2]
• Mountainous region of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, inhabited predominantly by Kurds. It covers about 74,000 sq mi (191,660 sq km), and its chief towns are Diyarbakir, Bitlis, and Van in Turkey, Mosul and Karkuk in Iraq, and Kermanshah in Iran. Since early times the region has been the home of the Kurds, a people whose ethnic origins are uncertain. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, provided for the recognition of a Kurdish state, but the agreement was never ratified. [3]

It seems that the "geo-political region" bit is redundant. Every source I can come across that defines Kurdistan defines it in these terms. So far, we've got one person (Coolcat) offended by its inclusion and one person (Kaseem) offended by its exclusion.

I'm going to change it, feel free to comment/post here.

- FrancisTyers 13:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the article as it read before "southeastern Turkey, also referred to as northern Kurdistan." is perfectly reasonable.

Some people (both turks and non-turks) call it "southeastern Turkey". Some people (both kurds and non-kurds) call it

"northern Kurdistan". I'm neither turk nor kurd, but I wouldn't mind using either name, because both names refer to

_the same place_.

As both Turkey and Kurdistan are geographical areas, it is equaly correct to refer to a "southern" or "northern" parts

of them. (even if they overlap)

The only reason why one of them would be preferred over the other is because the meaning it has attached to that area is more

relevant in a particular context. But in the context of the article, both meanings are equaly relevant.

OTOH, the "by kurds" bit, in "also referred to by kurds as" is clearly POV and inappropiate. Why are kurds the only people who

can refer to is as northern Kurdistan? If this was proper, then we could also add a "by turks" bit in the Turkey part. nyu 10:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is like calling california and textas Lantinoistan. No world nation sees Kurdistan as a nation. You cannot make a nation overnight. Cite sources for National status of Kurdistan. -- Cat ^chi? 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Usage of Kurdistan implies a Kurdish nation unless specified otherwise. Since there is no Kurdish nation there and Politicaly and Millitarily the region is controlled by Turkey that makes the region Soulth-Eastern turkey, for easy referance to some users in paranthesis it may be referanced as a geo-cultural region. Officialy there is nothing more to it. Its like Star Trek Fannon, not wiki material. -- Cat ^chi? 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, because no English speaking person calls it that. Kurdistan is currently defined as a region. Calling it the "geo-cultural region of Kurdistan" is redundant, like calling it "geo-cultural region of Kurdistan region". Maybe this isn't the case in the Turkish language, but it certainly is in English. Oh and by the way, Kurdistan can be defined as a nation, you might want to look up the definitions of the word nation in your dictionary, one of the definitions being: A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language. I think the word you are looking for is probably nation-state which can be defined as A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language. Those definitions are from dictionary.com which kind of sucks, but they'll be in other dictionaryies too. - FrancisTyers 07:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Please avoid mixing the question on wether it is a "nation" or a "nation-state" or the like with the fact that Kurdistan is the name lots of people use to refer a particular geographical zone. Take an example, the term "Africa" does not refer to a "nation" or has any political meaning whatsoever, it's just a geographical zone. The reasons why a term gained enough relevancy to be widely used to refer to that zone aren't really important wrt its usability. "Africa" gained its relevance because of purely geographical reasons, "Turkey" because of purely political reasons, and "Kurdistan" because of cultural/linguistical/ethnical reasons. But since all these terms are widely used to refer to their respective regions, it is correct to use them. nyu 10:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you can understand Turkish sensitivity on this topic especially because of the current political turmoil in Northern Iraq. It is still not clear if the regional unity of Iraq will continue, and since there is a federal state of Kurdistan in Iraq, which claims many regions of southeastern Turkey as its own in official maps, the term Northern Kurdistan implies much more than just a geographical zone. Therefore i edit it as Turkish Kurdistan only. Thalion Hurin 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thalion Hurin found the very best solution I believe, as there already is a federal state of Kurdistan in Iraq. However, by saying Turkish Kurdistan, the fact that predominantly Kurds live in the region is also being underlined, which is nice. Turkish Kurdistan should be fine. Sincerely --SilverWiki 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please define what your specific POV concerns are and I will attempt to fix them. If not, I will remove the NPOV tag. - FrancisTyers 14:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Article is not in accordance with neutral polint of view. The content is one sided and jumps explaining illegal activity of the villige guards. -- Cat ^chi? 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information regarding their other non-illegal activities. This article is not un-neutral. It is worded in a perfectly impartial fashion. - FrancisTyers · 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is self evident in your comment. As long as non-illegal activity is not present, article is certainly NOT impartial. Article is biased and hence not in accordance with NPOV. -- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. The article alrady says which is their non-illegal activity: to protect the villages. What can you say more? bogdan 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well same goes for US reserve service (or any article). All they do is protect the US. No need to mention their training, structure, duties, when was it formed, and etc...

I thought that village guard system is a militia, i.e. simply a group of armed people. An army is different thing, it has a clear organization, hierarchy, regulations, etc. bogdan 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, unlike us, you know Turkish! You could look in what the government say and in the Turkish newspapers for such details. bogdan 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is only mocks the villige guard system. Thats clear cut bias. It also lacks sources.

• "Turkish Interior Ministry approximates that 296 murders have been committed by village guards" who claims that? Should be easy to cite.
• "Report by the Turkish Parliament in 1995". Can that be cited? Does the report not even have a title?
• Had the villige guard system not have any positive impact?

-- Cat ^chi? 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it lacks sources. But that's a different thing from being POV. It could be factually inaccurate or it simply lacks citations. bogdan 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Turkish Interior Ministry approximates that 296 murders have been committed by village guards" who claims that? Should be easy to cite.

Now cited. From HRW. - FrancisTyers · 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Report by the Turkish Parliament in 1995". Can that be cited? Does the report not even have a title?

See our discussion over a year ago:

- FrancisTyers · 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Had the villige guard system not have any positive impact?

I don't know, perhaps you could find it. I'm sure it was positive to the people who are squatting other peoples property. - FrancisTyers · 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I am not defending the system. Random-gun-givin' is always bad practice. Furthermore, some of the villige guards were themselves PKK members (not present in the article). The millitary didnt like their formation and still dont like them all that much (not present in the article).

But not all village guards were/are criminals unless we are to conclude that every kurd is a PKK member + terrorist. Article is biased. So please provide info on the legal activity since you wrote the article, you should know about it.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try and look into it. If you could find a reliable source that discusses the fact that some village guards were PKK members I would be interested to read it. I thought I had included the part where the army says it was a "bad idea", but it seems not. I will try and find that source and include it. - FrancisTyers · 10:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere much with the topic as iIdon't have much knowlgde about it but I think the artcile simply can't be objective/neutral as it is now predominatly based on "human rights watch" and other such organisations. These organisations are all important no question, but I suppose they wouldn't even call themselves neutral. Maybe there are also some informations from the Red Cross/Red Crescent available? Let me clarify: I personally think that clear assessment is right; I dislike a "lets be so neutral that we even neutralize facts attitude..." but I agree human rights organisations often use POV. That's why I have tagged the article with the neutrality warning tag until the sources differ more. Arnomane 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I've added some information from the AAAS and from the US State department. If you would like to add stuff to the article, please go ahead, or if you could provide sources for me to read I would also be happy :) I looked for Red Cross/Crescent commentary but managed to find nothing. - FrancisTyers · 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a UNHCR source. - FrancisTyers · 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear wiki-maniacs, every article which does not mention positive aspects but only negative ones is biased. This is a paramilitary organisation for the security of the people of the area. As long as accomplishments are not added, this article must have the note that it's neutrality is disputed. This does not even mean that it is NOT neutral, just that the neutrality (and I believe there is a reason for it) is DISPUTED. Sincerely, --SilverWiki 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Parliament

10.5.1 The village guards are a civil defence force of more than 65,000 people. In April 1985 two articles were added to Village Law No. 442, and these permitted the temporary creation of village guards in provinces under emergency rule. The village guard system was implemented during 1985 and 1986 in order to provide self defence for villages and support for local Jandarma. The official (July 2000) regulations set out village guards’ duties as including the identification of people who violate the rights, lives, property and safety of villagers, informing the village headman and Jandarma of such people, and capturing them; informing the village headman and Jandarma of news about the activities of those residents of the village who have previous convictions, investigating the activities of suspected and convicted people, and following up military absentees and draft evaders; and taking all necessary precautions to protect, and avoid violations against, village assets such as vineyards, gardens, drinking water facilities transformers, water dams and waterways. Names of proposed village guards, having been identified by the village council (village elders), are notified to the head official of the district (kaimakan) by the village headman, and the head official approves them if he sees fit.

10.5.2 Participation in this paramilitary militia is mainly voluntary, but the US State Department Report 2000 observes that villagers face danger from both the PKK and the Government when choosing whether or not to join the guard force. The official (July 2000) regulations for village guards stipulates the conditions required of a person to become a village guard, and these include not having served a prison sentence for a crime, not having taken part in subversive, separatist and reactionary activities, and being known as a good mannered person who does not have a bad temper, who does not fight with anyone, and who is not a drunkard. However, the US State Department report notes that village guards have a reputation for being the least disciplined of the Government’s security forces, and have been accused repeatedly of drug trafficking, rape, corruption, theft and human rights abuses. It notes that inadequate oversight and compensation contribute to this problem, and in some cases Jandarma allegedly have protected village guards from prosecution.

10.5.3 The question of the extent to which membership of the village guards is voluntary has been addressed by, among others, German administrative courts. A decided case there (High Administrative Court Nordrhein-Westfalen, 22.1.00) found that nobody is legally obliged to serve as a village guard. The judgement went on, however, to say that in practice the total male population of a village is frequently summoned or detained in order to force them to become village guards. The security forces use this as a way of testing the loyalty of a village. These men are left with the choice of their village being evacuated or of their being interrogated and beaten at local police posts. If a person were detained and individually reiterated his refusal, he would usually come under suspicion of supporting the PKK.

From [4] - FrancisTyers · 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that a more neutral aproach. I'd like more info on this "German administrative courts" since they dont exactly have juristiction over a matter in Turkey so normaly courts would decline such cases like how it happens with sealand. :/ -- Cat ^chi? 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)