Jump to content

Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ozgurgerilla (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 5 July 2006 (→[[Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan]] be merged to [[Kurdistan Workers Party]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PKK and Social Ecology/Bookchinism

according to John Zerzan, http://greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=radio , the PKK has recently adopted social-ecologist politics. does anyone know anything about this?

That is right. Öcalan has called himself "a pupil of Murray Bookchin" and recommended Bookchin's books to everybody. His own last book draws heavily from Bookchin's social ecology. --Erdal Ronahi 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we knew,what is it worth?They are a terrorist organization,now their leader Abdullah Öcalan is caught,they are an irregular horde of misbegotten armed men.DO YOU negotiate with terrorists?--Turkish Legacy 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're negotiating with the IRA. Spain might soon be negotiating with ETA. Freedom fighters, terrorists, nations, oppressors... - Walshicus

Calling them a 'terrorist organization' is not exactly objective. By any standard other than fascist totalitarianism they are not.

I am not objective either.Not after I see the slimy bias pouring from Europe to defend terrorists.The double standard disgusts me,and those who apply it deserve no respect anywhere.They are the same with Al Qaeda and that's my final opinion.--Turkish Legacy 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pending citation

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

Sources

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

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

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

Vandalism through -Pending citation-

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

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

Proposal to eliminate the tempalte on neutrality and factuality.

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

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

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

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

Language

The language in this article is terrible to say the least. I have a modest proposal for improvement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Maybe if the Ottoman Empire gave the Kurds the freedom to study their history and to learn & speak Kurdish then Kurds would of had a country and not an attempt. Kurds do not trust the Turkish government because through out the history Turks have used the Kurds as slaves, killed ordinary people and called them PKK members Semdinli, discriminated them, the Turkish government also did no economic or any other kind of improvements for the southeast of Turkey for I don't know how many centuries simply because that is a Kurdish region. EU and the Ottomans used the Kurds for years and years so don't try to show EU and hide the Ottoman mistakes which are bigger then all. Finally, Unfortunately, Kurdistan is only the name of a geographic region and a cultural region in Middle East inhabited predominantly by Kurds. It is not an independent state. If the regions you're talking about are predominantly inhabited by Turks you should feel free to call it what ever you want, Turkistan, Turkmenistan, Turdistan, Ottomans, Pashas.. What ever you wish to call it. But the difference from the Turks inhabiting in Germany (which I can easily say 4 million of 5 are not Turks and Kurds) and the Kurds in Turkey is the population. There is more then 20 million in Turkey and approximately 5 million in Germany. Also on this, you should check out some unbiased history and war studies books. All of them use the term Kurdistan as the geographic region inhabited predominantly by Kurds which makes me think your opposition to the term comes from nationalist obsessions. No, you've said "one of the biggest faults is the term 'Kurdistan'". You can obviously express your thoughts and feelings on the matter but don't try to stop others from using any term because everyone should have the freedom to use any word. The lines are also very disturbing because it fades the standard talk page template which makes it difficult to spot the sections from your comments. I would like to kindly ask you to stop using them. Ozgurgerilla 07:07, 01 May 2006
Ozgur you may want to read this article. Seems EU's support to terrorism also coming to an end:
Lagendijk: Kurdish People In Turkey Should Tell PKK To Stop This Old Fashioned Tactics
--Gokhan 07:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KGK'

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

KGK's Annual Budget?

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

Disputes

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

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

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

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

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

Several of the US and UK links in the

"Websites with criticism of the PKK

governmental:"

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

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

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

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

Photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I want to inform you about the admin User:InShaneee

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

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

List of PKK killings

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

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

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

About the image

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruzgar 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict in south-eastern Turkey

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


Terrorism

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

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

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

Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan be merged to Kurdistan Workers Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only PKK has been identified as terrorist, not PJAK. Khorshid 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, we all know what they really are. However thanks to Wikipedia policies we cannot mention them as terrorists in the articles... we are allowed to use only "militant". It's really a disgrace for the real militant organizations... --Gokhan 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because introducing an organisation as 'terrorist' is the point of view of the editor and 'militant' isn't. Readers get to decide what the organisation is by reading the article and its history. Ozgur Gerilla 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party&oldid=62273210"