This is an archive of past discussions about Kurdistan Workers' Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The PKK is recognized and classified as a terrorist organization by all Western countries including the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. France and Germany, recently, banned the activities of this terror group and other West European governments, are closely monitoring the situation. "Terrorist" adjective should be added in front of the "organization" in the main article.
Quick ref. :
That maybe, but come on, you can find better references than those. 1. American, 2. American, 3. Israeli, 4. Turkish. Make some effort. - FrancisTyers02:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, better references can be found always, but they are even enough. I have not much time to spend, maybe someone else try harder? --Cansın 6.57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear FrancisTyers, why are you removing my "terrorist organization" edit from the main article? There is nothing to discuss about this while all western powers (US, EU...etc) and international organizations declare that PKK is a terrorist organization. There is no question over the definition. I have already provided links (not only those above but also under another heading below this page) regarding this matter. Wikipedia is encyclopedia and it cannot be used as a propaganda tool. PKK's being a terrorist organization is a fact. Please stop removing that edit. I do not have any problem with Kurdish citizens of Turkey, I have several very close Kurdish friends. I strongly defend that the conditions in southeastern part of Turkey should be improved. However, this cannot be achieved by terrorism. Cansın 2.00, 14 June 2005 (UTC)
JUST READ FINNISH CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 34 A. ACCORDING TO 34a.6§´S 1 TO 3, PKK FITS NICELY INTO THE DEFINITION OF "TERRORIST GROUP". ONLY SOLUTION TO ROOT OUT PKK IS TO GIVE END TO FEODAL SYSTEM IN SOUTHEASTERN REGIONS AND CRUSH THEIR MILITARY UNITS BY FORCE.
The terrorist activities of pkk is crystal clear and this article is the perfect example why wikipedia is not (and will not be) a reliable source of information. 85.100.158.416:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Copy vio is not the case
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The page in question sites sources which are cited on this page.
Sources are of public domain and the copy right is not aplicable or falls under fair use just like the remote page. The remote page got its information primarily from a serries of remote pages. I modified several sentences to imrove grammer. I already wrote an article saying identical stuff which was declared POV. I am providing sources and now its declared a copy vio. --Cool CatMy Talk04:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The copyvio notice was put up because some of the text was directly copied word for word. Funnily enough though, you left out all of the stuff on the page that was anti-Turkish government. We've discussed this. I (along with other people) have foolishly continued editting the article, I'm sorry. I've just moved all the new changes to Kurdistan Workers Party/Temp, we should work on this until the copyvio is completely resolved at which point the notice should be removed and the Temp page moved to the original page. - FrancisTyers11:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The data is PD, I picked up information in my opinion is Notable. If you can argue information I did not paste is notable then they of course can be part of the article. "Assume Good Failth" is among good wiki methodology. --Cool CatMy Talk02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
So teach me how to write an article, if I reword things thats POV, if I find PD information and copy paste thats Copy vio. for gods sake how are we supposed to write articles? --Cool CatMy Talk03:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
PKK doesn't have "aliases". This is a common belief that derives from the 'ha ha ha, they try to change name to divert people'-type of information in the media. I could clarify if you need clarification.
PKK is "Kurdistan Workers Party". It doesn't exist as a "party" anymore, but has been re-emerged as an "ideological school".
ARGK is "Kurdistan Popular Liberation Army" (or People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan). It was later changed to "HPG" (Heza Parastina Gel - People's Defence/Defense Forces), as it changed into a "defence/defense force" as the policy of the army changed into "defending" rather than "attacking". (Back in the beginning of the 80ies, the ARGK was known as HRK, Heza Rizgariya Kurdistan, Liberation Forces of Kurdistan.)
ERNK is "Popular Liberation Front of Kurdistan", the political wing of the PKK. Now ERNK is called "YDK", Yekitiya Demokratik a Gele Kurd (Democratic Union of People of Kurdistan). Just like "Sinn Fein" is the political wing of the IRA.
PAJK (Partiya Azadiya Jinên Kurdistan - Liberation Party of Kurdistan's Women)
YJA (Yekitiya Jinen Azad), the female guerrilla units within HPG.
TECAK (Youth Movement of Kurdistan), formerly known as YCK, Yekitiya Ciwanen Kurdistan (Union of Kurdistan's Youth), now means "Youth Movement of Kurdistan".
PCDK (Partiya Careseriya Demokratik a Kurdistan - Democratic Solution Party of Kurdistan), formerly known as "PKK-Bashur" (PKK-South), the PKK of "southern Kurdistan" (northern Iraq).
PJAK, (Partiya Jiyana Azadiya Kurdistan - Free Life Party of Kurdistan), active in "eastern Kurdistan" (Iranian Kurdistan)
HAK (Hezen Azadiya Kurdistan - Freedom Forces of Kurdistan), the military wing of PJAK.
PYD (Partiya Yekitiya Demokratik - Democratic Union Party), active in "western Kurdistan" (Syrian Kurdistan).
PRD (Partiya Rizgariya Demokratik - Democratic Liberation Party), illegal party in "northern Kurdistan" (Turkish Kurdistan).
I don't know if I may have forgotten any names, but these are parties WITHIN the KONGRA-GEL. KONGRA-GEL itself is a CONGRESS and NOT a party. All these parties are represented within KONGRA-GEL. That includes all the military wings. The CONGRESS itself is a member of the KOMA KOMALEN KURDISTAN (Kurdistan's Confederation, "KOMA KOMALEN" means Confederation in Kurdish.)
If you need more info, send a mail to me through the "contact us" form on http://www.dozame.org .. I'm BIASED, but I am also a source that can give you information that could clarify many misunderstandings due to (and I'm not "biased" when I say this) the ignorance of media and their misinformation due to their own laziness.
Also, most of the name changes were made because of POLICY changes and NOT as a move to "divert things". It's utterly STUPID to think that a movement like KONGRA-GEL would change names and think that it would bring "invisibility"..
BERXWEDAN IS CLEARLY TRYING TO MAKE PKK SOUND LIKE ANC ("CONGRESS" ETC). THERE´S ONLY PKK REPRESENTED "WITHIN" KONGRA-GEL, IT IS JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO FOOL PEOPLE BY CHANGING THE NAME.
- Bozkurt Tonyukuk
NPOV (again)
Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
francis tyers, first kurdish media is a recognized independant organization not affiliated with the pkk, second if you had actually clicked on the links I provided, you would have seen they post the link of sources, in the case of the tortured teenage girls : AI link.
here it is, you can see it's the exact same article as on kurdish media... apparently anything kurdish has to be POV, yet nobody complains when people give turkish sources.
Thankyou, I realise kurdishmedia is not affiliated with the PKK, but still, if I was to say post a source from fox news, an organisation not affiliated with the USA government I'd probably get laughed down. Everyone knows fox news is hilariously biased towards the USA government. Get it? Just because an organisation is 'independant' doesn't mean they are not biased. You'll note I laughed down the URLs from the "ATAA" (check them out some time). Also I DID COMPLAIN WHEN PEOPLE GAVE TURKISH SOURCES OR DID YOU NOT READ MY CONTRIBUTIONS?. - FrancisTyers06:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
so "only a minority of the "kurds" support pkk" eh?
first do you have numbers?
No I don't. Do you? I don't claim that a minority of Kurds support the PKK. All the Kurds I've met (under 10) have supported the PKK. - FrancisTyers06:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
second why is "kurds" between quotation marks? you have a problem with the name kurds?
It was actually "kurd" not "kurds" in quotation marks. This is to specify a string in a URL. I have no problem with the name Kurd. I suggest you look at my edits and feel free to contribute to my village guards article. - FrancisTyers06:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
third I saw you claim on pkk article there was no oppression of kurds whatsoever before pkk was created... tells how NPOV you are anyways. kurds were forbidden to talk kurdish. they were forbidden to have a kurdish name. they would get shot in the street just for speaking kurdish. all these are facts, google the internet as it is a widely accepted fact I don't have time to do it and won't bother.
I made no such claim, if you find it tell me because that is ridiculous. I agree I'm POV, I'm _really_ POV in favour of Kurdish rights. If you read my posts you'd see that. - FrancisTyers06:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
by the way, "human rights watch" and "amnesty international" are biased? waow. yeah, they're really so biased trying to talk about the numerous and horrific abuses the kurds have to face.
Every organisation is biased. You are biased, I am biased (pro Kurdish independence). The Turkish state and news are biased. The USA government is biased. The Israelis are biased. AI and HRW _are_ biased pro-human-rights which is why I prefer to use them. They have a go at both the PKK _and_ the Turkish government/military. - FrancisTyers06:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Then again, to cansin, if pkk is such a terrorist organization, how come europe gave leyla zana pro-pkk the sakharov prize? how come she speaks at the EU parliament? how come thousands of pkk fighters have gained political asylum and citizenship in european union? how come leyla zana almost had the nobel prize?
the article on pkk is not supposed to judge for either side, like it does now, it is supposed to relate of a war between a state and a guerilla group. if you say pkk is terrorist, then it's only your opinion. it's not mine, it's not the opinion of millions of kurds. therefore, favoring your opinion over mine is POV.
I don't pretend to be NPOV. but I don't try to put my POV in the page, while users like coolcat clearly are. users who try to put their POV shouldn't be allowed to edit. what if I go to the turkish page and put "terrorist" before turkey's name every time, and provide "links that call turkish state terrorist"? I can surely find a lot of them, and not only from kurdish websites.
pkk is a guerilla organization, considered by terrorists by some, and by freedom fighters by others. it should be depicted as such. the article should also mention the context in which pkk was created, meaning the oppression of the kurdish people, for which numerous sources can be found. and how pov is to say that "30.000 dead from pkk"? most of them were killed by turkish army, yet this is blamed on pkk. while I believe this is the responsibility of the turkish state, some believe this is the responsibility of the pkk, a NPOV edit would be to say it is the responsibility of the war, period.
I removed pov wording, and pov claims from the article. if you have a problem with some of my edits, please act like civilized humans and discuss it here why.
- kassem
sorry francis the 1st 2nd and 3rd wasn't aimed at you, but at coolcat, I know you didn't say that ;) it's my mistake I should have been more accurate but my english is not always the best.
I know about jimmy carter, I mean, I don't really, just he was an american president and heard he was pro-cuban somewhere? but anyways leyla zana nothing like that she's a strong courageous woman and believe me she really deserved that nobel prize... but again, you're right in a way, evne chirac the saddam supporter was nominated for nobel peace prize...........
but on the other hand mandela too.
so I registered too and I made a few edits ( before I registered ). I removed ONLY things that were pov, like accusations of drug trafficking and putting mines, all this had no source, and on "tactics" also things were highly pov, I might have deleted some stuff non-pov in the middle but this part ( if relevant at all ) needed highly rewriting.
as for the few school teachers killed, it did happen and apo admitted it so I don't object as it being put in the article, but it can't say "civilians who weren't in the pkk was killed", like it did, because it's untrue.
also you have to remember, that children speaking kurdish in school were often beaten up, banged their heads in wall and such, so it should be addded too, even if it doesn't excuse killing of schools teachers, it provides insight on the context. then this almost totally stopped after the mid-80's and abdullah öcalan admitted it, and said it was a mistake.
right now all I've been doing is deleting things that were pov, I've not rewritten anything so I look for you guys comment so we can discuss it before.
only thing I rewritten was sentence : "pkk committted atrocities... turkish governement was accused of commiting atrocities" this wording was highly pov. coolcat is gonna come claim he has "proof" of pkk atrocities, like gross photo editings or such, well I have AI links for turkish atrocity, seems more believable source. anyhow, in an attempt to be as neutral as possible, I didn't mention any of this, I just put : "pkk was accused" and left "turkis government was accused". so it doesn't put pkk atrocities as a "fact" and turk atrocities as a "rumor" like before.
so feel free to comment on all this, please discuss before reverting or changing as I don't wanna start a edit war that would be useless to all.
Also, since about 2 weeks the PKK doesn't call itself KADEK any more, there was a presidential council and they reverted back to the pkk names. this went along with a change in the ideology of the party, with the implementation of the KKK ideology ( no this is not ku klux klan, but koma komalen kurdistan, which means : democratic confederalism kurdistan ). since it's a major shift in policy we have to put it in the article somehow, but as a poor writer I don't really know where to start. I will try however.
Don't worry that much about spelling and grammar, this can be fixed afterwards. Yeah, I know its not called KADEK any more, I tried to change it back to PKK, but coolcat reverted me. - FrancisTyers08:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
also I think we should change the links names into "anti-pkk" and "pro-pkk". obviously anti-pkk consider it terrorist, and pro-pkk freedom fighters, this is just an attempt at throwing 20 links into the "terrorist" part and 5 in the other to make believe it's not evenly shared... and also I would like to add links on the kurdish situation more broadly, as I don't think we have an article called "kurdish question" or "kurdish issue in turkey"? if we have it should be linked from here, if not informations relating to that should be put here.
I don't mind keeping the ATAA links, it was just my lazy way of trying to balance... I guess I'll just look for more pro-kurd links so we have an even number.
btw why not comfortable with the links with kurd in the name? I didn't provide that much, plus it seems to me at least half the numerous links against pkk have turk in the name. if it's the pov of kurds, there gotta be kurdish websites too... the ATAA is a turkish thing too.~
I'm not comfortable with those URLs either (the ones with Turk in the name) and I've expressed this before, I don't want to remove them as Coolcat will just revert. Personally I think its much better to try and use more "neutral" sources to write the article. I will be content for the moment with any bias being clearly labelled, so if it comes from the ATAA then it is labelled as ATAA, if it comes from Kurdmedia, it is labelled as Kurdmedia. - FrancisTyers12:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The PKK article is based on NON-Turkish sources. Websites in question have profiles on many other organisations. I have no problem classifying PKK as Terrorist personaly, Wikipedia NPOV suggest otherwise and article does not refer to PKK as "terrorist". It just gives information regarding PKK based on external sources. --Cool CatMy Talk03:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
What is pov and what isnt
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
ATAA can be interpreted as Turkish POV, it is an insight and thats fine, material in article is no way based on that. It is there to ballance what can be interpreted as Kurdish pov on www.PKK.org and others. --Cool CatMy Talk02:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I dont know what you are trying to suggest with that amnesty.org.uk report, this is normal in civil wars/disorders etc. It is immoral, incivil, unacceptable, yet normal. The checks and balances mechanism is overwhelmed by actual PKK activity to fix "bad" cops. Violence leads to violence. Like I mentioned on IRC, things would be different if Kurds followed a Martin Luther King Jr. like campaign rather than what PKK ended up. You really think in any war this kind of stuff never happens? Violence is only necessary to stop violence. Attempts to make a point via senseless violence (Suicide bombing etc..) historicaly has never been succesfull. --Cool CatMy Talk03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Bear in mind that western media hand picks "minor" incidents to "proove" how "barbaric" Turks are. I can assure you I haven't seen any evidence of it, people are generaly nice, just like Northern Mid West, US. Its easy to trow mud and sells more too. --Cool CatMy Talk03:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
No copyvio
I have removed the copyvio allegation; upon reviewing the allegation I see no evidence of a copyright violation. A short list of common language phrases is usually inherently uncopyrightable, and the section of the original webpage that appears to have been replicated is such a list. Kelly Martin 04:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Current Article
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think the article is acceptable in its form of now. if coolcat doesn't revert the last edit, it is okay for me.
by the way coolcat, kurds tried from 1970 to 1980 to form peaceful political movements. its leaders and supporters were systematically murdered, and after the 1980 coup any civilian kurd was randomly murdered and tortured by the military as they wish. pkk always fought by the rules of war, targetting exclusively military and police. turkish government on the other hand killed many many civilians, and torture ( which pkk never did ) was common for turkish government.
it's not common place in conflict, pkk never did such atrocities. and what was underlined in the article is DESPITE THE EVIDENCE of these atrocities, only ONE MONTH ago turkey declared the policemen innocent - while the two TEENAGE GIRLS did several years in prison based on FALSE statements taken from them UNDER HORRIFIC TORTURE as said by amnesty international.
if you don't revert the article, I think it is acceptable as of now. tell me what you think.
please be constructive and don't revert without talking, or I'll revert back anyways.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some kind of restructing should be implemented to separate out the military (guerilla), terrorist and political activities of the party. It is harder than with most "terrorist"/guerilla organisations because the political wing and the armed wing both have the same name. - FrancisTyers12:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose splitting the article into the following articles:
Should be changed to "People's Defense Forces" (HPG). (It WAS called People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK). The reason behind the 'name change' is an organizational restructuring and a policy change from "active attacking force" to a "defense force". They are still maintaining this policy.)--Berxwedan 11:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OH COME ON, ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL US ALL THAT PKK IS A "DEFENCE" FORCE? GET REAL - Bozkurt Tonyukuk
If i've missed any off, let me know. As a matter of interest, which organisations within this list are usually responsible for terrorist attacks? - FrancisTyers 13:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
None of them are responsible for "terrorist attacks". All of them are political wings in different areas, but the military wing is HPG. It also depends on what the definition of "terrorist attacks" is. Placement of mines seem to have been defined as "terrorist attack", but then again, if using mines are "terrorist attacks", then this should be applied to the American army too. (USA has not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.) Then again, a mine ceases to be a mine when it's remotelly or directly controlled by a person.
There is one organisation that is still conducting acts of terrorism in Turkey, but they are not affiliated with PKK. (Even though they are very sympathetic to PKK's cause.) That group is called TAK, Teyrêbazên Azadîya Kurdistan (Kurdistan's Freedom Falcons). But that group should be listed separately as KONGRA-GEL has denounced the actions of that group.
A separate page called "KONGRA-GEL" or "People's Congress of Kurdistan" should be the main page which all the groups above should be linked from. And KONGRA-GEL should be linked from Kurdistan's Democratic Confederalism. That is the proper hiearchy.--Berxwedan 11:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SEE: THIS GUY IS QUOTING ACTIONS OF PKK WITH QUOTATION MARKS (" ") - BOzkurt Tonyukuk
Sources (again)
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
For the whole "Resource Gathering" section, you only give one source. That source is "Section based on material published by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.". Considering the nature of the allegations I think that you should either find the names of the official Turkish government reports or remove the insubstantiated allegations. I know you just copied it off the ict.org.il site, but you should make an effort to find the correct sources. "material published" does not a citation make. I have left it in for now in the interests of not starting a revert war. Note however that you should deal with this. - FrancisTyers16:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am forced to rely on Turkish goverment for some information. I do not have any other sources regarding that spesific section. The US goverment verifies most of the claims on various different pages.. I can provide LOTS of sources, but the sources secction is begginging to be clutered. I do not appriricate your recategorisisng of the "sources" page. I find "PKK now" to be inevitably POV. Its pov either way. Turkish side will claim no change is present PKK side will clame conterarry. I am sick of discussing same THING over and over and over again. --Cool CatMy Talk22:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding POV of "PKK now", I agree, it is POV. To get NPOV, we represent both sides. Yeah, discussing the same thing over and over again gets kind of dull doesn't it ;) Solution is to fix the problems, not just ignore them. I'm currently pondering what to do with the source issue. - FrancisTyers09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I have noi problem working on it. Its giving me a headache though. I really think the article must be restricted to PKK. --Cool CatMy Talk13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Recent changes by Project2501a
If anyone has any question over if EU recognizes PKK as a terrorist organization or not, please visit these links: [1],[2], [3] -Cansın 3.00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
External links
Several external links were categorized as "Websites with criticism of the PKK" but after checking them I saw that the criticism in them was minimal. I've moved them down to a new section, "Other websites that cover the Turkey/PKK conflict". They appear to be either neutral or anti-Turkish government. -Willmcw 00:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Deleting material is bad
FrancisTyers, please stop removing material form the article. You already tried to remove material via copy vio notice, please stop. The "uninformative" material explains pkk activity in detail. Bear in mind that wikipedia is not a blog. I see "pkk now" as pure pov never the lest after carefull trimming I think thats the only usefull information left. I am a reasonable man. If you can discuss the relevance of the material I wont have any problem. I do not care about the "kurdish nationalist views" whatever they are in this article as this article is about PKK. Not PKK's views not kurdish problem, its just about what pkk has done and what pkk is. I recomend doing google searches such as: drug pkk. or drug pkk site:.gov if you dont trust .com domains. --Cool CatMy Talk 22:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Common knowlege points out pkks drug ties and other activities just from that google search. It will list numerous websites including US departement of state etc. This article is about PKK's activities and PKK's structure. I dont feel like citing sources more than I have for things like "drug" ties. A simple google search gives you the results. I call that common knowlege. --Cool CatMy Talk 22:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please, for the sake of my blood pressure and sanity: amend, edit, and discuss rather than reverting. --Cool CatMy Talk 23:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What makes you think that a government source is more trustworthy than a non-government source? Because the USA government supports your POV because they have a vested interest in branding as many people as terrorists as possible? Get realistic man. A simple google search for PKK and drugs gives a lot of Turkish and USA links. A search from Amnesty International for "PKK drugs" gives: [4] and HRW gives [5]. I quote:
In addition, elements of the PKK reportedly raise funds by shipping drugs from Asia and the Middle East to western Europe through the Balkans and Italy.
"elements" of the PKK. This suggests that it isn't a PKK policy to smuggle drugs, but some people within the PKK do. Similar situation exists with the village guards. It isn't POLICY to smuggle drugs, but some of them do. This is an important distinction to make.
I don't get why you don't class information about the PKK (the PKK now section) as useful. We seem to have to put up with all the stuff you copy/pasted from that site, but you don't seem to want other people to make edits.
I am sorry. I dont like people dictating whats pov and what isnt. PKK's drug ties are common knowlege. PKK actively sold drugs. You can't smuggle drugs if you dont have a massive cooperation between a lot of people. Drugs are sold on to many peoples to make it hard to trace. Thats common knowlege. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to buy weapons? Please dont throw me amnesty int material as a means to remove material. You can add the views of random people (thats what tamil tigers is) while removing goverment data. If PKK is so good why is it listed in the list of Terrorist nations? Thats a list every country in EU and every state in US MUST recognise. Also all NATO members, which covers even canada. Funds of this irganisation are on hold. I am a fan of NPoVising articles. I am not a fan of turning articles in to the organissations annual message board. This organisation costed a lot of lives amnesty int and all other human rights organisations ignore. Thats why I cant see them as credible sources personaly (thats my taste if you will). Never the less I am not ignoring the material. You can turn this aricle into a soap box with aproporate statements from amnesty int according to WP:NPoV as it is not the lack of point of views but the neutral point of view. I highly discourage that. It will ,lower article quality and reader will at best be confused. BTW I kept your edit until a discussion regarding that material is concluded. --Cool CatMy Talk 12:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That "PKK smuggles drugs" was assumed when many Kurdish druglords turned out being PKK-"supporters"(among them Huseyin Baybasin, currently in prison in Holland, and nowadays an active anti-PKK because of his 'friend' Kani Yilmaz, former PKK representative in Europe, having left the PKK and today working against the organisation). A long story. But neither Amnesty International nor HRW will cover this. Most of the druglords are from the Lice area of Diyarbakir or from Bingöl in southeastern Turkey. Most of them were actively working with the Turkish government before 1991, but turned side when Tansu Ciller became PM in Turkey and started to eradicate Kurdish druglords in favour of Turkish druglords. Lots of Kurds, not only the druglords, were killed between 1991-1997 by the Hizbullah (acting as proxy for the Turkish army) and it was during this time that the "PKK smuggles drugs" reports started to emerge. Tansu Ciller is herself today wanted by German justice to stand before court for ties with the Turkish mafia and for having ties to drug smuggling herself.
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I rewrote the first few sections, tying to clean it up and make it NPOV.
User:Coolcat, you added much of the old stuff back into the activities. But you didn't edit the grammar, and you duplicated stuff. The old activities section was a mess of stuff that didn't flow together in tense or style, with three different bullet points all saying the same thing. It was like a poor attempt to beef up the activities section to make the PKK look bad. The PKK already looks bad just by saying that they're doing bombing, etc. The stuff re-added here is going back to that old style.
"Actions the PKK has been accused of include:"
"Turkish military and police forces."
How does that make sense? "Turkish military and police forces." isn't an action. It's a noun.
"Raiding villages and small towns."
That line is an EXACT duplicate of the second line in the section.
"Kurdish civilians who would not cooperate with the group or were alleged of collaborating with the Turkish military."
This was the only appropriate edit, I feel. I totally forgot to include that in the list of their activities. Of course, "Protests" shouldn't be capitalized.
The Turkish government responded to these actions, by using a more drastic and direct approach against the PKK. According to the Government, from 1984 through November 1997, 26,532 PKK members, 5,185 security force members, and 5,209 civilians lost their lives in the fighting. The damage to infrastructure and the money spent to end the conflict is claimed by the Turkish government to stand at 200 billion ($200,000,000,000) US dollars.
I would have included this, but I couldn't find a source for it. The source I found for the numbers of deaths conflicted with this one.
Why is this image in this article? It's a poor shot that just shows a couple cars turned over and a couple guys standing around. It's low-quality and certainly doesn't show anyone "demonstrating". This is an example of POV, trying desperately to add an image that shows PKK supporters being destructive, even if they only image is poor and barely shows that.
I think what is needed is some help NPOVing this article, and also some separate help cleaning up this article. Coolcat seems to see any edits of his work as "reverting", which leads to frustration by all parties. I'd love to see things worked out here.
I think the same, see above re my ideas about restructuring the article. I'd love some help with this :) At least some kind of background on the political situation of Kurds in Turkey that lead to the formation of the PKK is sorely needed. It should probably be covered more fully in Human rights in Turkey, but some should go here. Terrorist organisations aren't just started for fun, they are started to correct some perceived injustice, the article needs to explain both points of view regarding the perceived injustice. - FrancisTyers 15:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some reading in the archived talk-page of PKK. The user "Coolcat" is clearly biased. He doesn't even have any unbiased sources. It sounds like he's on a CRUSADE against PKK. Not even accepting Kurdistan as a name for a region shows that his stance is not even anti-PKK, but anti-Kurdish. "Kurdistan" is not only used as name by PKK, but by all Kurds in the area. Not accepting this is like being the mouthpiece of the Turkish State, which goes "separatism!" as soon as they hear Kurdistan. (There is a clear distinction between using Kurdistan as if it was a STATE or as if it was a REGION.) I think most of the news agencies (AFP, Reuters, AP, etc) should be put in the "terrorist list" for using the name Kurdistan for the region. Plus, as I've seen, most of the work that Coolcat has done in the PKK article comes from anti-PKK sources. Taking US, EU, etc, terrorist lists as reference is not enough. USA put PKK on the terrorist list back in 1997. Which logically means that PKK did something/accepted a policy in 1997 that USA clearly didn't like. EU put PKK in the terrorist list in 2002. Same thing there. Just saying "They are on the terrorist list" is not enough. There should be decent references to why PKK was put in the terrorist lists. If PKK did something in 1990, then how come it took 7 years for USA to call it "terrorism". There should be EXPLANATIONS. Otherwise, the article can't be called "encyclopedic" but pure propaganda. And Coolcat even has the stomach to say "I and Wikipedia don't like propagandists".. Pfff.. --Berxwedan 13:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should add something to the above. "Coolcat" has written papers on the controversial GAP Project (a.k.a propaganda work) for the Turkish Government. Check under "Allegations lacking basis" in the GAP Project talk page.--Berxwedan 13:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. One of your points was very interesting, that is "what did the PKK do in 1997 that made them terrorists in the eyes of the USA?" and "what did they do in 2002 that made them terrorists in the eyes of the EU?". Maybe there wasn't anything in particular and it was just as a result of lobbying by the Turkish government, or in exchange for Turkish help in something. In which case this should be explained. I've asked time and time again for him to give his sources, but as I'm sure you've read he claims its "common knowledge". - FrancisTyers 28 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)
What an appalling article. I suggest those with the time and energy move material (like the flags and the timeline) into appropriate daughter articles, and develop this main article from scratch, appropriately sourced. Rd232 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
If you want to talk about me you will adress me or will fill an RfC against me. I have nothing pleasant to say about the PKK. Anything will be biased in your eyes that disagrees with you. Find me a non biased site. Please. I sincerely do not see US gov as biased. I encourage you to accuse me of more things. I am quite amused. --Cool CatMy Talk15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I stand for the truth and facts, if you are disputing this you are welcome to do so. Discuss the material not me. Present cases from credible sources. I am on a business trip I will react and respond to your edits later. --Cool CatMy Talk17:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Even for such a controversial topic, that response borders on paranoia. The only edit I made was to add the Paul White book reference. I haven't done anything else because I seriously think this article is so bad that it would be better to start it from scratch. It's not just the lack of balance (it doesn't say anything about why they've done all these things for instance, or discuss their ideology, or give any context for the Kurdish issue), it's that even if all you're interested is writing an article "Terrorist acts of the PKK (which is essentially what this article is), it's just so badly organised and written that it would be better to start again from scratch (using material from the old version as appropriate). Rd23216:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
T.C.
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is T.C., if you are going to use abbreviations, please mention it. A lot of recent edits to this article are badly translated, most probably from the Turkish wikipedia page. I see the timeline is from there aswell. - FrancisTyers11:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
TC stands for the Republic of Turkey. I am less than pleased to see almost all my contribution to be removed. I currently will not be editing this article as it isnt worth my time. Once my vacation is over I'll rewrite it for the third time. I will be collecting more material from offline sources as well. --Cool CatMy Talk15:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Current Complaints (or why this article is totallydisputed)
Latest comment: 19 years ago61 comments4 people in discussion
WHAT BIAS IS THERE IN THESE THOUSANDS OF DEAD AND WOUNDED? GET REAL "BERXWEDAN". IF YOUR ARE A PKK SYMPHATISER, YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THOSE WHO CARRY A GUN. OR ARE YOU ALREADY ONE OF THEM? WOULDN´T SURPRISE ME AT ALL
PKK having three suicide bombers since 1978 doesn't make it a "suicide bombing organisation". PKK didn't set out with the idea of using suicide bombers in Turkey. Therefore, when suddenly three suicide bombers pops up in 1996, there must be a reference to WHY the PKK used three suicide bombers. Anyone that KNOWS the PKK (journalists, researchers, etc) also knows WHY the PKK used these suicide bombers. Research this and you will find the answer. If you are lazy, I can understand that you won't research. (Which is called "auto-laziness caused by BIAS" as in "no, I don't want to know, I don't care, they are terrorists, they killed my friends cousins dads friends son-in-law (who happened to be a soldier in the Turkish army when he was killed), and therefore they deserve to be called terrorists!!!!111.) --Berxwedan03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Berxwedan,get your terminology straight.PKK has used suicide bombing at least once,and has targeted governmental units with disregard of any civilian casualities,which defines it as A BLOODY WELL DAMNED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.Now,if you are going to ask WHY,I am going to say:"To further their goal."No need to research this.Auto-Laziness caused by BIAS?TRetarded moron.
Background is a MUST. Nothing pops up out of nowhere. Justification or not. There is ALWAYS a background to everything. Father copulates with mother and out comes sister or brother. Sister or brother was not brought to father and mother by a STORK. Face it or leave the editing to others. --Berxwedan03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Anybody can "totally dispute" anything if it lacks encyclopedic professionalism. I have even seen demands by Wikipedians to erase articles due to bad grammar and writings that are not "encyclopedic" (See some of the talk-pages of American High Schools and you'll get me.) There is "what to say" but there is also "how to say it". I agree with Francis on this. --Berxwedan03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The timeline is extremly inaccurate and doesn't show all the activities/congresses/"break throughs"/number of burned villages/and so on/and so on/. It is "static" when a "TIMELINE" is supposed to be dynamic, which means that it can't be edited. There is also no source to WHO made that timeline and where they got their information. THERE ARE NO SOURCES. --Berxwedan03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If the article is a translation from the Turkish Wikipedia, then it is not unbiased. I have read the Turkish article myself and it is purely BIASED. --Berxwedan03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Everyone is BIASED you idiot.You are PKK-Biased(and as such Terrorism-Biased),I am Turkish-Biased.At least you are Berxwedan-Biased,and I am *******-Biased
Look at the section called "Cyprus". It says: "Cyprus Turks were used as an example to Kurds in Turkey." What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand ANYTHING of that section. Under it, it has the section "immigration" and it says "PKK developed a mechanism to help their members to gain political asylum." What IS this "mechanism" and how does it work? How many people gained political asylum by this "mechanism"? Numbers, facts, SOURCES. Come on. --Berxwedan03:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't add the flags there so that it could be called "Flags of the Kurdistan Worker's Party". The ONLY flag that belonged to the Kurdistan Worker's Party is the flag that is called "Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Flag" and that flag was abandoned in 1995. The section should be called something like "Flags of current (and historic) Kurdish militant and political groups active in Turkey". And there should be similar articles for "active in Iran", "active in Syria", "active in Iraq". Because the "Free Life Party" is not active in Turkey and is not a part of the PKK, but the KONGRA-GEL. I don't know much about Wikipedia, so if people that are superior on the technical front, ask me and I will help you organize it. (Do not despair, I AM trying to learn by looking at and "reverse engineering" the codes.) --Berxwedan03:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine, if you insist, although we've been over this countless times before, my current complaints are (in no particular order):
I see its pointless arguing as you can't make the distinction between individual members of a group and the group itself. Perhaps you'd like to think of it this way... Saying that all PKK members are suicide bombers and condone suicide bombing is equal to saying that all members of the Turkish Military are rapists and condone rape. The rest of my points stand as you haven't answered them adequately. - FrancisTyers17:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Insufficient coverage of human rights abuses of the Turkish state compared to the coverage of PKK human rights abuses. - FrancisTyers16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
shut it Francis.That's rude and ugly if you don't have the time to post something worthwhile,you make fun of your opponent's grammar mistakes and spelling.And CoolCat,if he makes that again,tell him to shut up.How is the cars burning at Paris?You know,the African immigrants are burning them because their human rights are abused.hah...--Turkish Legacy11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Timeline will stay and should exists right after all info right before external links. Timeline shows the activitiy of the organisation. --Cool CatMy Talk17:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Err? When I cite sources you declare it as copy vio. When I cite sources article is butchered because of "POV sources". Exactly what do you want? I am really lost. I do not see anything detailed on any .gov web site. I just see actions taken against PKK and a very brief summary for example at US navys database. --Cool CatMy Talk17:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that most of the article was selectively copied from a public domain source that doesn't give proper references. - FrancisTyers16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Please do not decide what is necesary and what isnt. If pictures disturb you tell us why. I do agree flags should be moved to a commons.wikipedia article. --Cool CatMy Talk17:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Really obvious badly worded POV. Example: The means to political aims of PKK is totally at odds with the concept of civilization. - FrancisTyers16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes the French Colsulate I believe has a simmilar quote. Name is Paul Paudade. I do agree a NPOV article would be nicer. --Cool CatMy Talk17:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Those are some of the reasons for the totallydisputed tag. Please don't remove it until we come to an agreement.- FrancisTyers16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I have hard time understanding your position. I have lost my best friend for a stupid fight,
whom he could easily be a Kurd as his family came from Van (city in that region). While studying with him, I have never
wondered what his ethnical background, as his personality and his humanity was his main attraction. Whole this mess
is caused by a person (symbol of PKK), whom searched solutions for his political agenda through
violent activities.
I do not seek my revenge through violent activities and a person who seeks their political agenda
through violence has no part in a civilized life. That is the reason for thr sentence: The means to
political aims of PKK is totally at odds with the concept of civilization. I can see there is a
grammar problem in this sentence which I would like you to help me fixing this issue, however
if you believe there is a place for terrorism you should seek professional help.
This sentence and what it represents about PKK could not be a reason to think this article is
biased against PKK as that is what it seeked for. Three deaces of my life is a proof to it. I can support this
sentence with the assationations, ambush and bombing that happaned through out this time. It is lame to blame
T.C. for it, or not to talk about it, to be politically correct.
Unsigned - Tommiks
And what's this? So whoever tries to write this article in a way that "T.C" doesn't like, then they are "terrorists" (which you nicely imply as "if you believe there is a place for terrorism, you should seek professional help". Why don't you give him "professional" help with a bullet in his head?). Please take a look at the article about Al-Qaeda. Their actions have frightened more people than PKK's and their aim and methods are completely in an extremly polemic domain, but still, the article is professionally written and is not infested with reactionary, emotional or propagandic clutter. Let's keep this article PROFESSIONAL with LESS biased clutter. If you want BIAS, I could easily give you bias, but that would do no good. Kurds could easily go to the article about the Turkish army and add reactionary and emotional clutter there. But that is completely unprofessional and fortunatelly, Kurds have shown great maturity by not tainting articles with biased nationalist reactionary emotional CLUTTER. PKK killing your friend doesn't give you the ultimate right to show people YOUR emotional and biased view of the PKK. HISTORY deserves better than this. So does WIKIPEDIA.
I would love YOU saying that when your buddies are blown up by a two bit landmine placed by a Kurd.
In other words it does not matter which nation one is blowing self up in public. Weather thats Tokyo Metro, Lonton Metro, Madrid railway, or any other forms of "publicly blowing self up/gassing/timered explosives/remote explosives/type method here in order to kill many others." --Cool CatMy Talk17:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The Turkish state discriminates against Kurds. It discriminates now and has discriminated more thoroughly in the past. - FrancisTyers18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
What Kind of discriminating When did it start? These are very important. Martial law was declared in the region after PKKs activity. This is quite normal. --Cool CatMy Talk15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
No organisation represents Kurds in general, not the PKK, not the Turkish state, none. The PKK represents the aspirations of many Kurds for autonomy, human rights, less discrimination. - FrancisTyers18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I dispute this. I dispute it greatly. Kurds are represented by the people they elect. In the region HADEP is in power. This is how democacy runs. --Cool CatMy Talk15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
True the organisation strenghtened peacefully then started its attacks. The article does not dispute this. Majority of PKK's existance was terrorism. --Cool CatMy Talk15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Cite sources. What activities? This means little. The statement conflicts itself. A country/state doesd not exist prior to itself. --Cool CatMy Talk15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Grammar Edits
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I came across this article and noticed a series of grammatical and format (lists instead of paragraphs) problems. I decided to start fixing them, stupidly forgetting to check the talk page first. I'm going to proceed with the edits, striving to maintain current POV/NPOV in the article. If anyone objects to my changes, please contact me here or on my talk page. I should also note that I only have a passing familiarity with the subject, so please believe me when I say that any errors are made through ignorance rather than malice. --Scimitar17:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
No problem man, but don't limit yourself to grammatical fixes. Please if you see any factual errors, report them here or in the article. This article badly needs spelling and grammar fixes, it would be nice if editors checked them beforehand, but obviously some can't be bothered. Be bold. Quick note, we're using English English not American English conventions :) - FrancisTyers18:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That's good, I'm Canadian anyway. I'm going to leave this diff [6] detailing my initial edits up for a little while to see if there's any negative reaction; if not I'll look at fixing similar problems in other areas, and possibly expanding to factual ones as well. --Scimitar18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
1) I've removed the Abdullah Ocallan section; relevent data should be in the history sections, and everything else is already stored under his article and can be looked up there. I've also moved the flags to a subpage, as they weren't terribly encyclopedic where they were located. The section still stands, but now consists solely of a "see the subpage" statement. I think this removes a good portion of the clutter associated to this article.
2) I would also suggest that (after appropriate NPOV-ing and grammar fixes) the "History of" and "Effects of" sections should be split into seperate articles; their information can be summarized in the main article.
2. The artricle is poorly organised at the moment, no argument there. I do feel removing the history of the organisation is a bad idea. Some insignificant details maybe removed or simplified. --Cool CatMy Talk15:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
4. I do believe the article should be NPoV, however some activity of the organisation is marked as an accusation. For example the drug ties of the organisation is hardly PoV. The organisation does not dispute this activity for example. I do believe we should not be marking material that even PKK does not dispute as POV. You may want to check the earlier version(s) of the article. Last version of the article I wrote mostly was [7] --Cool CatMy Talk15:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Really? On what basis? Just because he disputes it doesnt make all of this fiction, does it? Cite sources plz. Bombs did blow up people did die. PKK had taken responsibility at the time. Not once had PKK denied responsibility. Not to my knowlege. --Cool CatMy Talk15:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Take a good look at what you wrote. You first say, "For example the drug ties of the organisation is hardly PoV. The organisation does not dispute this activity for example." And then you say, "Bombs did blow up people did die. PKK had taken responsibility at the time. Not once had PKK denied responsibility." .. Francis said that I disputed the DRUG TIES. But you managed to add "bombs" to that. No, I don't dispute that. PKK blew up a couple of places, but claiming "they blew things up" without sources won't do it. When, where? And only the ones that they claimed responsibility for. Because DHKP-C, TIKKO, and many other leftist groups blew up lots of places too. Don't use the opportunity to put the blame on PKK for DHKP-C's bombings. Therefore, SOURCES. --Berxwedan05:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes they did blow things and innocent people up (LOL SO DID THE TURKISH MILITARY), he was referring to the accusations of drug running. Read before you reply. - FrancisTyers16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, for now, I suggest we leave the POV warning up and get the article's format fixed. After we have a slightly more comprehensible format, then we can worry about POV problems. In response to Cool Cat:
1) I don't object to him appearing as a see-also; but given how often the article mentions/links to him, it struck me as redundant
2) I don't want to remove the history; just make it a seperate article (History of the Kurdistan Workers Party), and summarize it for this page.
3) I think you're right; I'm not sure what standard procedure is in this situation.
4) As above, I advise leaving it as an accusation (which it is, even if it's a true accusation) until we fix format problems. I just really have a hard time arguing about POV in this article because in its present state I have difficulty wrapping my head around the article. --Scimitarparley16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I dont want to give you a head ache. I have no rush for such matters. Do not worry about making me happy for now :). I do think the article is about 40k which isnt much really. The 32k cap was for older browsers due to a purely technical reason. --Cool CatMy Talk11:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Why names are important? Why should document be intact.
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
PKK is a huge organization. To differentiate among people, you have to include as much reference as possible. There are people who have not performed criminal activities, but use PKK to voice their ideas. My personal idea is that no one should let their name be associated with the criminal organizations. However, reality is different. I'm against terrorism. I'm adding any reference that I find involving these activities. I reject any idea that takes names, dates and link from this document to different documents, because of the given reasons. Instead of breaking to different pages, I favor creating making sections, so that people can jump within the document, but not loose the integrity of the story. I believe the names and what happened to the people who signed the initial form of PKKs ideology are important part of showing how PKK evolved. --tommiks18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The story has no integrity if it's a mishmash of raw data (its current state). Thus it's easier to say that the proclamation was signed on such and such a date, and to see the list of signatorees, refer to this other page. Also, you should add your sources to the reference section.--Scimitarparley19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Why the story has no integrity or seems to be a raw data
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is very unjustice to say; "there is no integrity to the current form of this page". I can trace additions to this page from people that share drasticly different point of views. However, there is a decency on both sides that they eliminate insulting remarks but keep the important dates and events on the page. Wikipedia is a place where everyone can freely change things. It is just normal to look like a collection of raw data for a "case" that took 30,000 souls. There is no other organization in the western world that had PKK's effect on any western country (I know one in Africa). The CURRENT FORM of the page reflects the information that is accepted by all the sides.
It is only fair to call this page a working copy. As everyone fixes the small mistakes but not deletes the significant information. Even if they do not accept.
I belive the REMARKS about language and story is correct, which will be fixed with time. With time story will become more effective. I'm not paid to do this editing. I hope this is true for everyone. This page is edited during the free time we have. That takes time. Be Patient. AND NOT DELETE INFORMATION.
None of the editors on Wikipedia are paid. Obviously I am not paid. This article is not supposed to be a working copy. This article is always supposed to be readable and coherent. Working copies belong on user pages, not in the article namespace. My comment about integrity was not about the moral quality; rather about structure (ie hull integrity on a ship). It is currently structureless. I would advise starting a working copy on your user page. If you don't know how to set it up I will be happy to help you. Once your working copy is coherent, then we'll look at either merging or replacing this page. This page, however, should always be readable.--Scimitarparley20:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Material for use after restructure
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I wont be editing the article like I said earlier on. I am waiting Scimitar to complete his efforts. Meanwhile I am collecting material regarding PKK. Data on PKK does not exist on one solid page so Its one hell of a reserach. Feel free to comment on material. --Cool CatMy Talk14:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Articles title is "Kurdistan Workers Party" not "Turkey". Try pushing your case on a diferent article more related to the topic. --Cool CatMy Talk13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the time on the edits; I went to a wedding and haven't been online for the last 6 days. The article is in a constant state of flux right now; Tommiks is adding info I don't have access to, and I'm not sure where he's getting it. I'm gonna start by reformatting the paragraphs before I get into more ambitious edits. --Scimitarparley14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
POV removal
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
When I started editting this article, I said I'd strive to keep POV the same. I'm now also going to remove very POV statements (like this [8]). This article has so much crap it's a little overwhelming, especially at the rate grammatically poor new material gets added. --Scimitarparley17:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Anti goverment?
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
The "anti-government" definition was deleted as it is totally wrong. PKK is not anti-goverment as it has (communist-socialist) ideology. The organization has a very hierarchical structure. Anti-government movement is best represented under libertarian movement in USA. The introductory sentence is changed to correct references to (communist-socialist) and (ethnic-seperationist), in fixing "anti-goverment" referance. This problem orginates from a wrong translation from a Turkish source. The source was a Turkish government document, which implied with "anti-government" word as it is against Turkish government. -unsigned Tommiks
Firstly I highly encourage you to sign your posts. You can do this by using the 2nd button between the W and --- on top of the edit box. This will add a --~~~~. Alternatively you can type --~~~~.
Secondly please discuss the matter here rather than editing the article for a while. Another editor (Scimitar) is fixing gramer and other material. Meanwhile you can discuss anything you wish here. --Cool CatMy Talk19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Also please understand my stading as well. I personaly see PKK as a terrorist organisation. Have been that way for over a decade. I am inclined to think you feel the same. Do understand that we cannot on wikipedia declare PKK directly as a terrorist organisaion due to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. We can however write about their activities. The reader will be able to decide. --Cool CatMy Talk19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Just stay cool while the other editor (Scimitar) completes seperating PKKs history from this article. This is necesary because the article is just too long. This does not mean we are throwing away PKK's history but instead investigating it in greater detail. I think after we remove history the article will provide general information regarding organisations activity throughout its exsistance. --Cool CatMy Talk19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
History
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
User:Tommiks has suggested on my talk page that I have a pro-PKK bias. He cites my choice in pictures for the article. Since I believe that the PKK is basically a terrorist entity, I disagree with his assessment, but I would appreciate any comments from people who feel the same. If you feel I'm overly biased, I'll stop editting the article. --Scimitarparley21:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, personally I find it difficult to make sense of what he wrote on your talk page, I suspect he isn't a native English speaker. What he means by "document integrity" is a mystery to me. I have no problem with the images on the page at the moment. We could probably find a better one of Ocalan though, or remove it (We do have an Ocalan page) I believe that Cool_cat complained last time though. I supposed the problem is with finding high quality, or even good quality free images. The one from the protest was taken by me. I don't mind the content of the image, the quality is what i'm concerned with. If someone has a good quality photo of a PKK member shooting a pregnant mother, pushing over an old lady or interfering with a dog then I'd be happy to include it. Low resolution, poor quality images need not apply. - FrancisTyers12:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
POV, grammar, spelling, nonsense
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a terrible article. There's an almost fanatical anti-PKK POV, it reads like it's Turkish government propaganda. The language is horrible with mostly broken sentences, generally bad grammar and countless spelling mistakes. The bulk of the article is patent nonsense, with sentences like "It is important to recognize not just what has been destroyed in terms of rail roads, communication centers, etc. but also what could have been achieved if the dustruction was not happaned." leaving me baffled. As the PKK describes itself as a political party, I expected at least a brief mention of their politics, instead there are sections like the post-traumatic stress disorder one (which doesn't actually mention PSTD, but the idea seems to be that Turkish soldiers have been traumatized by fighting the PKK).
This article needs a total rewrite, unfortunately I know next to nothing about the PKK (that's why I looked it up) so I haven't got much to contribute. I've added the attention template for what it's worth. 80.203.115.1213:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
If you have the time read through the talk page and archive, you should be able to find some sources worth looking at for information about the PKK. Please come back if you feel like contributing again :) - FrancisTyers13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Apologies
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, but I'm not going to have enough time to do the major overhaul on the "Effects" section, or the other stuff I had planned. I'll still drop by to do some minor editting, but right now I just don't have the ability to do them. I'm really sorry, since this article needs the attention, and I wanted to do it. Apologies, --Scimitarparley 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S.- thanks for putting up with me.--Scimitarparley15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Clarify this
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
So if I show pkk people demonstrating peacefully thats not pov, if I show them causing havoc thats pov? Is it pov to show planes crashing into WTC? The images have a caption which gives you the location and gives you the time. You want me to prove it? --Cool CatMy Talk11:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
When you think something needs clarity, feel free to look it up on a variety of sources before asking about whatever questions need to be answered. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in. (Although there are some reasons why you might like to do so...)
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or try out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Places to start researching include (but are not limited to):
Your local library; PublicLibraries.com lists public libraries by U.S. state; UK Public Libraries lists public libraries by the regions of the United Kingdom
If you're just looking for answers to your questions, you can try the Wikipedia Reference Desk, although reliability is not guaranteed and answers given should not be used as resources for any academic paper or encyclopedia article.
Clarification
MY COMPLAINT (AS I HAVE SPECIFIED ALREADY COUNTLESS TIMES) IS NOT WITH THE CONTENT OF THE IMAGES, IT IS WITH THE QUALITY OF THE IMAGES. LOW QUALITY, LOW RESOLUTION IMAGES WHERE YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON ARE BAD. GOOD QUALITY, HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES WHERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS GOING ON ARE GOOD. SIMPLE.
I can tell whats going on just fine. Images exist in the article thumbnail size anyways. I really do not see an argument. --Cool CatMy Talk13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Yo, fast fact! When a user clicks on a photo/image that is thumbnailed, they expect to see a bigger, higher resolution version that actually shows them what is going on. Not something the size of a postage stamp. Please compare:
With the top three images it isn't even clear that the people protesting/rioting are pro-PKK at all. They could be anyone. The copyright status of the top three images is unclear. I'd say of all of them, the Ottawa one is the best, but don't you have a higher resolution version? I would prefer that you remove my photo from the article in the name of NPOV than add other low quality ones in the name of NPOV. - FrancisTyers14:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
FrancisTyers editing is eliminitaing the important referances.
Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I have recognized FrancisTyers is constantly editing out words referancing terrorist definitions, under the name of improvement. I believe this constitude a goal more than making the document NPOV, but mainly getting rid of referances of PKK's main activities. --tommiks23:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't need to call an organisation "terrorist" if it is terrorist. Describe their actions. I believe the article speaks for itself without having to resort to name calling. Besides, in the third paragraph it explicitly mentions that x countries classify the PKK as "terrorist". Btw, this article is standardised on english, I would appreciate it if you refrained from using american english. I don't believe I've removed any references to the activities of the PKK, except possibly where they weren't backed up by sources. - FrancisTyers23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, you are obviously not a native english speaker. I have no problem with this, I am happy to fix up your spelling and grammar errors and remove patent nonsense. However, take note, before making assumptions, e.g. removing keywords that suggest pkk is a state, I suggest you consult a native english speaker. Because that suggestion is ridiculous. - FrancisTyers23:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
To FrancisTyers; You have deleted this introductory sequence sentence: PKK undermined the government in the country; it influenced ideological and political factors in order to impose its own model. Besides the government, PKK’s acts and methods often attempt to coerce others away from full participation in the political process. I believe you got rid of them because it did not fit your idealogical perspective.
I deleted it because it is nonsense and I don't know what you mean by it. Lets take it a step at a time shall we:
PKK undermined the government in the country - This part is redundant, it is a given that they are undermining the government, that is their stated mission. It is well covered in the introductory paragraphs.
This sentence was introduction to the section "Effects of PKK" it might be redundant in your mind, but in the text it was where it has to be. --tommiks02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
it influenced ideological and political factors in order to impose its own model - This doesn't make sense in english. Are you trying to say that the PKK attempted to replace the current political system with their own? If so then this is also redundant. See introductory paragraphs.
If you have any idea about how much HADEP had to fight to escape from PKK's control, (even today that fight is going on), you would not drop this. Thank you reminding that this section in the document needs to be opened more. Also, this expression is not redundant in the sense that it was in the beginning section of "effects of PKK". If you are right, if this idea was mentioned somewhere else, you should delete it from that section. --tommiks02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Besides the government, PKK’s acts and methods often attempt to coerce others away from full participation in the political process. - I don't know what you mean by Besides the government, but the rest of this almost makes sense, do you mean to say something along the lines of:
I'm sorry that I forgot to copy the "first version of the text". You were the one who deleted referances explaining how PKK undermined the goverment. When you deleted those specific actions, the first sentence linked to the third sentence which explained how it also undermined the participation. At that time I thought you might have a point deleting these sentences as they will be explained in detail. In a way you get rid of the paragraf, one sentence by one sentence. --tommiks02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The PKK opposes the current political process in Turkey. It seeks to discourage and coerce others with both violence and the threat of violence into not taking part in this process. It sees the current political process as illegitimate and not in the interests of the majority of Kurds.
"The Kurds" as seen (defined) by PKK are the ones who want to have a seperate state. But there are "Kurds" in Turkey, which PKK do not call the Kurds (colleborators and killed a big bunch of them) that are happy to express and find solution of their problems in unity.--tommiks02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
>>>The "effects" section would be better, if we have a summary paragraf at he beginning(may be you will fix the "besides the goverment" part). I would like you do it, as you are the only one who knows where in the document these ideas are repeated. That was the reason you deleted them. --tommiks02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
To FrancisTyers; My goal is to explain this important issue. I do appreciate when someone fix my expression. I do welcome any help aligned with that goal. I also go one step forward by "I do not want to hurt people who did not perform criminal activity, but tried to voiced their pain, If any of statement that is not related to criminal activity, please delere them to." that is the reason I always use names, places dates.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Please bear that in mind with any edits you make. It is not for "voicing peoples pain". The article should be factual and refrain from calling names. This is why we say "these countries call the PKK terrorist" instead of "the PKK are a terrorist organisation". Wikipedia is not your journal, it is not a text book and it is not a place for original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. - FrancisTyers02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
PKK has never been "Maoist" in any period of its history. The usage of the term "people's war" does not necessarily indicate that they are Maoists. In fact, the people's war strategy of PKK was affected by the vanguard warfare to people's war strategy of Mahir Çayan. On the other hand, PKK had always seen Soviet Union as a "progressive power" and often as a "socialistic society". This is strongly opposed to sine qua non Maoist attitude that classifies USSR as "social-imperialist".
I concur with this assessment. I don't think the PKK can be claimed to be Maoist, so barring proof, please don't reinsert that claim.--Scimitarparley19:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
If you do not like mao then you have to delete the referances to gerilla warfare, and couple of social policies that PKK used over the females. Guys, this referance is used in international policy publications and also with Franz Schurmann (San Francisco Examiner), which this article in the third sentence uses him as a referance, used the term "Maoist-inspired". If you have an access to indexing systems you can find at least four papers, that covers this concept. The question is "WHEN DO we begin to move beyound our comman sense and use expert information". DO NOT DELETE THE REFERANCE to MAOSIT PLEASE.--tommiks20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not want to dwell into conceptual discussions, which I'm not in a position to argue why these scientists have used this term. But I read your referance. I belive PKK can be classified one example of MAOIST idealogy, like Khmer Rouge. From your referance:"The ideology of the Khmer Rouge combined an extreme, somewhat revised form of Maoism with the anti-colonialist ideas of the European Left, which its leaders had acquired during their education in French universities in the 1950s. To this was added resentment against the Cambodian Communists' long subordination to the Vietnamese. In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "new people" Besides the theoretical imprint, the violance of PKK maybe not reached to the range of 1.7 million :-&, but Ocalan is living and there is time to reach a conclusion. I'm JUST USING A PUBLISHED ARTICLES on this issue.--tommiks20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't my reference, if you're talking to me, and I wasn't referring to the Khmer Rouge in power- I was referring to the Khmer Rouge before they got into power. The in power Khmer rouge ideology differed significantly from the guerilla-fighter Khmer Rouge ideology.
From Maoism: A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period (as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism). Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Indeed, Mao famously stated that "the bourgeoisie [in a socialist country] is right inside the Communist Party itself", implying that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented.
Since I've never seen evidence of the PKK espousing this, I think they're more pseudo-maoist than full-maoist, and perhaps a better term would just be the more general Marxist-Leninist, which indeed Maoists refer to themselves as. This is particularly true given the ideological reforms the PKK have instituted since their inception. Thus, if we can't distinguish the type of Maoism practiced by the PKK in the article, I'm more in favour of simply calling them Marxist-Leninists.--Scimitarparley21:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I feel Scimitar acts like an arbiterer. She/He should revert that concept back in the introductory paragraph. My argument: Do we use only economical views, because there are other dimensions. I believe PKK have never developed a state economy, right?. Really besides the terrorism, there is nothing PKK did significantly in the world of actions. I believe these scientists are approaching from a wider perspective. I'm not gonna defend someone elses work, or its terminology. They used this terminology with PKK. They are considering the military and social organization sides. Obviously this terminology makes sense to me when I look at PKK tactics (war side). I'm just collecting information and summarizing. If it does not used in this document that would not be a missing point. There is no theory that justifies even a lost of a single life.
Well, first off, I'm not much of an arbiter, and I'm not an administrator, so I have no official power or function. If you have any problems with me, let me know, and don't put too much stock in what I say. Aside from that, given what Tommiks just said, I think the safe choice would be to call them Marxist-Leninist, since as you quite correctly pointed out, they've never developed economic (or for that matter, much social) policy, so Maoist seems too specific. I agree that their ideology is a side point, so unless I hear any objections in the next little while, I'm going to put Marxist-Leninist in the page instead of Stalinist/Maoist.--Scimitarparley22:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Clarification on "PKK" ideology
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Whoever claims that "PKK" is a Maoist/Stalinist/Marxist-Leninist organisation is using OBSOLETE information.
First of all:
I've pointed out to this several times. PKK changed into KADEK. KADEK changed into KONGRA-GEL. PKK changed into KADEK in April 2002. In August 2003, they issued a clarification statement saying:
(3) A democratic solution further requires organisational and social structures conducive to such an undertaking. This implies that the structure and style of leadership will have to democratise and that the unconstrained, full participation of activists and grass-roots supporters at any level of the struggle be ensured. If a party, organisation or body espousing the cause of democracy wants to go beyond mere lip-service and adopt democracy as a way of life, it has to open up decision-making and implementation processes to as large a variety of people as possible. This entails the realisation that the idea of absolute leadership involved in Leninist party structures with its rigid hierarchy and notion of discipline, the resulting irreplaceability of the individual and, most notably, the claim of an absolute vanguard position vis-à-vis all parts of society, constitute a contradiction with democratic structures. The fact that KADEK has preserved influences of the Leninist party model has prevented it from effecting the very democratisation it is now talking about. The organisation has so far fallen short of implementing democratic thought and discourse in practical life. Under the present conditions where a democratic solution has matured, there is the need for a serious reform in the field of organisational and societal structures in order to prevent a self-consumption of the envisaged processes. While the party should function as a vehicle for political struggle, it should cease to act as the vanguard of democratic organisations and institutions. Each democratic structure should in itself function as a lead and participant actor in the process of social change. The common efforts of parties, democratic organisations and institutions will need to find their expression in a Democratic Social Co-ordination on the basis of equal participation.
It continues:
KADEK shall re-evaluate the effects of Leninist theory of organisation on its party structures, mode of relationships and way of life and subject itself to change on the basis of what is outlined above. It shall revisit its program, statutes and way of operating. It shall also set up a leadership whose component parts are conducive to this end. It shall enrich the fabric of its leadership and its body of members by including the Kurdistan National Congress and a variety of other democratic circles. Thus a far-reaching politico-organisational reform process has been initiated.
That the PKK changed into KADEK was not a mere "name change", please understand this. It was a pure and pure POLICY CHANGE.
The flag that you guys are using as the "PKK" flag, was renounced by the PKK in their 5th party congress in 1995! Read this:
"Another highlight of the meeting was a resolution adopted to
abandon the traditional Cold War symbols of the hammer and
sickle and drop them completely from the PKK's party flag and
amblem which were promptly renewed. The PKK later boasted for
being the first post-Cold War group to take such a "pioneering
step" to drop "the burdens of real socialism." Indeed the movement,
which started off twenty years ago as a Marxist-Leninist Kurdish
group in Turkey, also rejected during the Congress the concept of
Soviet socialism and "other dogmatic policies," emphasizing once
again that real socialism and organizational structure had to keep
up with changes in world history. It denounced Soviet socialism as
"the most primitive and violent era of socialism."
So you must understand. When you are talking about "Marxism-Leninism", you are not only talking about mere ideology, but also an organisational structure. Many organisation in the world, who are not ideologically Marxist-Leninist, are still having a Marxist-Leninistic party structure. Whenever you hear about a "Politburo", you know that it has a Marxist-Leninistic party hierachy and organisational structure. The "PKK" (I'm writing this in QUOTES as the "PKK" doesn't EXIST anymore) got rid of the classical communist symbology in 1995 and toned down their Marxist-Leninistic ideology. In 2002, they got rid of it totally and on top of it, they also got rid of their Marxist-Leninistic organisational structure.
Also, claiming that the "PKK" has no "social policy" is RIDICILOUS! This is one of the recent SOCIAL POLICIES set up by the "PKK" (you can download it as an PDF-file):
There is a difference between "present" and "past perfect". It is not even clear WHAT you guys are writing about. Is it the past or the present? The "PKK" is not even called the "PKK" anymore. They are not even a PARTY anymore. I mean, how many times do I have to write this? I can give you crucial statements from 1995 and forward. It will clarify things better for you.
I don't OBJECT to a reference that KONGRA-GEL is in the terrorist list of USA/EU/Turkey/Iran/Syria/Iraq, etc. But that doesn't MEAN that KONGRA-GEL is a terrorist organisation. The KONGRA-GEL is STILL not in the UN terrorist list, which means that over 100's of countries have still not branded KONGRA-GEL as an terrorist organisation. Plus, WHY is the KONGRA-GEL in the US and EU terrorist list? I want you to write that "The armed wing of the KONGRA-GEL has issued that they are now in a pure defence position, but as they are not laying down their arms, the USA and the EU considers them to be a terrorist organisation". The ONLY reason for KONGRA-GEL being in the terrorist list today is that they refuses to lay down their arms.
But, I have the feeling that words like "Stalinist", "Maoist", "Khmer-Rouge", etc, are used to basically DISCREDIT the PKK. Is this article an encyclopedic article or an anti-PKK propaganda outlet? If the last one is the case, then I will be forced to organize friends and we will have to consistently and aggressively defend the true historic facts of the PKK, and we will not give up until Wikipedia deals with the obviously POV'ed article. And it looks like the LAST ONE is the case, because the information is skewed and biased in favour of the Turkish government. Please, be fair and be humble. This is in the interest of everyone. Don't turn this into a LOSE-LOSE situation.
--Berxwedan02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Be Bold. Then fix it. Let's be very, very clear here. I live in Canada. Before Wikipedia, I had never even heard of the PKK. Now, all the source material I've seen (I can't speak for Tommiks) is relatively out of date, so of course the article is going to be out of date. I have no anti-PKK POV here because frankly, if they all dropped off the face of the earth tommorrow, it's doubtful that I would even notice. It's been four days. Nobody has responded to you. Install your changes (preferrably with some reasonableness), and whatever we don't like will get hashed out here. --Scimitarparley14:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
User Berxwedan is representing a Pro-PKK organisation DozaMe
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Their site was closed by order from German government. DozaMe.org was full of PKK propaganda. This person is definitely not to be considered trustworthy if it comes to neutrality or accuracy of information.
Dear Francis Tyers; What about you? A Bulgarian? I'm a living proof Kurds can coexists with other cultures (vice versa) in Anatolia. I have my own mother thong, Turkish on top of it, and a little English. Like a lot of my friends with Kurdish origin. There is no ethnic/cultural hatred on my side, neither them have. Can you say the same thing? So why do you have to put me into this argument. Are you saying I’m a liar? What is the purpose of linking me to Turkish State? If you think my additions are not realities, you are substantially off from common truths. (in the postmodern sense :) ) I guess that is also possible. A simple fact for you; Berxwedan openly defends the arguments of violence and demands immunity for people who perpetuate them. PKK is a criminal organization. There is nothing else to it. Berxwedan is a substance to a crime. There are laws against it. And these laws are older than Turkish State. You have to learn to separate these concepts. It is that simple.--tommiks21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the PKK is a criminal organization, it needs to be described and explained in the best neutral terms. That is, both supporters and opponents of the party should be given a chance. --Merovingian(t)(c)16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
