Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

Designation of PKK as terrorist organization by Israel

The source for the designation of Israel is unfounded. It’s based on Netanyahu’s word and not on proper legislation or lack thereof. On the contrary - the PKK doens’t appear in the official terrorist organization designation list of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. See: https://nbctf.mod.gov.il/en/Minister%20Sanctions/Designation/Pages/downloads.aspx (accessed April 18 2024). Moto53|Talk to me! 10:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@LeonChrisfield: please explain your removal of MERIP, AEI and Progressive International references. I don't see how any of these fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources or fail verification for the PKK espousing a progressivist ideology. The op-eds are used per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Soapwort (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all that’s go through those article:

“Americans Shouldn’t Accept Erdogan’s Cynical Stance on the PKK”

This article has only mentioned a progressive government once referring PKK laid down arms and escaped to Syria, or what was referred as “Syrian Kurds”, equalizing Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria under the SDF and YPG as a PKK subgroup. Whilst both groups are allies and have many similarities, it’s misleading to say both groups are the same organizations or use it as a fact that PKK is progressive, and the article’s mentions of PKK’s engagement of terrorism further complicates things. Additionally, it didn’t mention about what values they hold are considered progressive other than resisting Turkey’s discrimination, and said the group was founded based on “ethnic grounds” or drawing parallels with South Africa, but not specifically on the progressive values themselves. If anything it should be referenced in the connections between PKK and SDF/Northern Autonomous Administration in Syria.

For the second article, “Mad Dreams of Independence”, the only “progressive” reference is the 1950s and 1960s “progressive nationalist” Kurdish politics, not directly referring the PKK. There is mentioning of the goal of a “democratic and federal” state with the Kurdish Socialist Party, which is aligned with the “Democratic Confederalist” ideology and should have been referenced correctly.

Finally, the third article of the Progressive International was written by the a journalist of the “ Rojava Information Center”, a media organization that represents the interests of the SDF and the PKK, and declared its support of Ocalan. If a Turkish media like Daily Sabah cannot be used due to its perceived bias, I don’t see how a pro-PKK media source can be used.

Wikipedia: Biased Source: Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedanwrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Clearly those biased sources should be more appropriately given in-text references in such a highly contentious article, especially considering one of the articles have a pro-PKK media’s reference that shouldn’t be used as a direct source when reporting facts about PKK’s ideologies or atrocities. LeonChrisfield (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the highly contenious and controversial nature of the article as per the templates would naturally require better sources, especially those have direct evidences and discussions about a certain ideology to be cited, rather than the media affiliated with either the PKK or the Turkish state, which is generally unreliable in this case. LeonChrisfield (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "Communalism" in ideology list

Libertarian socialism is already listed. And when you click on Communalism, it just takes you to the paragraph where it talks about Libertarian municipalism and Libertarian Socialism. Same thing, different words. It's repetitive. 67.71.58.194 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias

Would just like to point out that the grey wolves which is on the opposite end of the political spectrum is described as a terrorist organisation within the first paragraph despite not being recognised as so outside of Kazakhstan whereas there is no mention of this within the first paragraph of this page despite being designated as a terrorist organisation by the entire western world 2A04:4A43:525F:D1D0:C0A3:F03F:6DBF:3405 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist label "controversial"

"however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial to some analysts and organizations, who believe that the PKK no longer engages in organized terrorist activities or systemically targets civilians."

Should this be removed since they just conducted a terrorist attack?

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

oppose: recent events have (probably) not changed the existence of this perception of the organization. Especially considering the building was a government facility, so people can argue that it did not target civilians and therefore is not terrorism (please consider: what matters is not the validity of this view, but its existence, as that is what the article is making note of).

Unless we see a significant shift in the opinion of the mentioned "analysts and organizations", I think this should be kept. Mason7512 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)