Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

About Not Writing "Terrorist Organization" in the Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The strong resistance against writing "terrorist organization" is being defended with wiki NPOV. I understand lots of Kurdish people don't like being as a terrorist organization supporter but the fact that PKK is a terrorist organization, killed more than 30.000 people (civilians + military person), and if you like to read the whole article you'll see that this "terrorist" organization terrorizing not only Turkish people but also they are terrorizing Kurdish, Syrian, Iraqi people in the area. Why are you against writing "terrorist" word??? Ermancetin (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is literally already written in the lead that the PKK is classified as a terrorist organization. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is my problem with common anti-PKK arguments from Turkish nationalists, the whole 30,000-40,000 killed by PKK statistic is the amount of people who have died in the conflict, the vast majority of whom being killed by the TSK. Regardless of whether or not you like the PKK, the label “terrorist” in my opinion should only be applied to organizations that are almost universally hated, such as ISIS or al-Qaidah Serok Ayris (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The PKK has, some time during 1999, decided and declared that they would stop doing terrorist acts …and there is no a single example of a PKK act from 2000 or later, that targets civilians. (or an area that includes, or very well could include, civilians) In other words: It's a groups that committed terrorism in the past, but has turned over a new leaf, and hasn't committed any terrorist acts for over 22 years. (though still officially listed as a terrorist organization, by almost everyone …for some inexplicable reason. But that is not for Wikipedia to say/judge, of course. But stating the clear fact, of how they said they'd change, and that they have, is simply stating the facts. That IS for Wikipedia to say/judge)

I remember challenging someone to find an example of a PKK terrorist attack, and when I checked their example, it was the case of civilians getting hurt by shots fired at the PKK. In another case, it turns out that the examples were acts committed by TAK, and not the PKK…

…and yet, nowhere in this article, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, is this mentioned.

The immoral acts of the PKK are mentioned, but nowhere is it mentioned whether/when they have ceased doing them.

That is a clear violation of NPOV.

It's selection bias/reporting bias/confirmation bias.--155.4.221.27 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

are you a joke?? no terrorist act from PKK since 2000 or later??

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/866092/Turkey_country_policy_and_information_note_Kurdistan_workers_party__PKK__February_2020.pdf

Systematically the PKK militants killing civilians, including infants, civil officers like teachers, doctors, e.g.

https://stockholmcf.org/22-year-old-music-teacher-killed-in-pkk-attack-laid-to-rest-in-turkeys-corum-province/

Your fake propaganda may look cute to some orientalist westerners but I dare you to tell your lies to those, whose family members have been slaughtered by PKK-bastards..

PKK IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND I AM TELLING THIS AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SO MANY TURKISH-KURDISH MARRIAGES/COUPLES IN HIS/HER FAMILY.

My genes is a mix of Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian but I do not turn a blind eye to PKK terror!! The truth is powerful and will prevail (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there it is mentionED in my first reply that it is already mentioned in the lead that it is a designated terrorist organization. I'll close the discussion. If a new issue arises, the editor can open a new discussion. And if an attack on an unelected politician who usurped the position of an elected politician is terrorism is questionable. Would you deem the attack on the one who made a coup against Erdogan usurped his post as terrorism? Let's leave such issues to the scholars. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem is not solved and failure is not corrected. Why is this discussion closed? First sentence MUST be changed. Its not true. Do you want lies on wikipedia? The whole world is laughing about wikipedia due to failures like that. The first sentence must precisely clearify the content of a wikipage. And this one is about PKK, a terrorist Organization which is labled as one by more then 30+ nations. This belongs into the 1st sentence. The 1st sentence however talks about how the organization describes itself. Which is not relevant here in the first/lead sentence on wikipeadia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightfire66 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A correct lead sentence would be: The Kurdistan Workers' Party[a] or PKK is an armed group which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey,[23] the United States,[24] the EU[25] and some other countries. It identifies itself as a kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement, which historically operated ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightfire66 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The terror classification is not as clear as you claim. In case of the EU it is a political decision, not a juridical one, as in court the PKK won and this twice. So it is a controversial issue and merits to be mentioned alongside the terror classification. Then also the terror classification is not the defining quality of the PKK. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The first document that The truth is powerful and will prevail linked to, to show that PKK are terrorists, conflates the PKK with several other groups, including HBDH who aren't connected to the PKK, and TAK (an obvious terrorist group), who are enemies of/to the PKK! Certainly not part of it. Thus, that document can be dismissed. As for the the second link... how is that a Reliable Source? How do they know it was the PKK? Have any other, non-Turkish, sources verified, that it was the PKK?

The article does state, in the lead, "however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial,[24] and some analysts and organizations contend that the PKK no longer engages in organized terrorist activities or systemically targets civilians.[25][26][27][28][29][30]" ...but nowhere in the main article, does not go into any of the reasons why it is said to no longer engage in terrorist activities, or how/when/why this change happened. Thus it only talks about how and why they should be seen as terrorists, and says nothing of the opposing opinions. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--155.4.221.27 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Usa Eu and many countries consider the pkk as terorist Turkish SpongeBob (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Guys in the Religion section of Pkk's

There is an article to change the Friday prayers to Kurdish instead of Turkish, but in Turkey, Friday prayers are performed in Arabic. In other words, Friday prayers are performed neither in Turkish nor Kurdish. Turkish SpongeBob (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Please let's be sensitive to terrorist propaganda.

Wikipedians should be aware that the PKK is a terrorist organization that tries to sustain itself through propaganda because it is Marxist and communist in nature. The organization's acts of terrorism against civilians have never ceased. Just today, after killing a villager and a veterinarian, they seized his vehicle and carried out a suicide attack in parliament. In the discussion section of this article, there have been numerous discussions about the destruction of the article. One of the arguments put forward by those who claim it has not been destroyed was a sockpuppet account, and they admitted to systematically attacking a Wikipedia administrator and were subsequently banned from Wikipedia. That's why I request the removal of the sentence "and some analysts and organizations contend that the PKK no longer engages in organized terrorist activities or systemically targets civilians." Attacks on civilians are constantly taking place, as shown in the video below. You can find hundreds of similar videos by searching for "istanbul pkk attack" or " on YouTube. My request is for you to ensure that Wikipedia is not exploited by a terrorist organization. Thank you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlIGdbw1kE 31.223.61.163 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that removing the designation of the PKK as a terrorist organization in so far that they agree to comply with whatever that involves as per some form of legitimation and international recognition is tantamount to there being an effective and lasting peace process, but I do think that, since they are clearly designated as a terrorist organization by a good number of Western countries, the article could be somehow reworded to include "designated terrorist organization" or something to that effect within the first paragraph. The second paragraph begins with something like that, but what militancy combined with armed guerilla asymmetrical warfare is is just simply what is commonly understood as "political terrorism", which doesn't necessarily change in so far that someone is in favor of such praxis in a consideration of those who engage in it as "freedom fighters". They do, of course, change in the 90s, as well as that Abdullah Öcalan was famously converted from Marxism-Leninism to Democratic Confederalism via Murray Bookchin's "libertarian municipalism", and, so, there have been substantive changes to the organization since, but it's not as if there aren't still aspects of the organization that don't operate like what we would typically consider as a terrorist cell, and, so, I don't know, though I'm hoping they won't remain as such, I do think that it could go in the leading paragraph that they are designated terrorists. I mean, MI5, for instance, vets Kurdish sympathizers via their application process, and, so, it's not like that it's contentious that a lot of people in the West do consider them to be terrorists. As to whether or not they should, that's a complex and difficult question which requires a lot of clarification, caveats, and nuances, but that they do is just kind of a general fact. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As a strange aside, operating under the delusion that factions of MI5 supported some kind of über-liberalism, i.e. the idea that the end goals of anarchism and liberalism were more or less the same, somehow motivated by the Lifehouse Project, though I couldn't explain as to how, since I was suffering kind of a mental breakdown at this point in time, I applied to MI5, which is how I found out that the suspect at large within the test that they give you was a Kurdish militant. Those tests are probably all different, but that's where I get that from, anyways.

That's not terribly relevant to anything concerning Wikipedia, but I feel like someone is sure to find it to be fairly interesting. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know what narcotics the PKK is alleged to be trafficking?

I remember reading a German blog that alleged that they were involved with the trafficking of marijuana and heroin, but I don't, at all, remember where that was. Given common allegations about the Grey Wolves and that this article cites one of their leaders alleging that Turkish intelligence had given them money as some form of entrapment, though clearly wildly speculative, I wonder if such things don't play into their involvement with the heroin trade. Turkey is also notorious for its excessive punishment in regards to hashish, which makes me wonder as to whether that doesn't have something to do with Kurdish independence.

This article also mentions that they are alleged to be involved with human trafficking, which, I, at least, have never heard before, though, as I haven't read the Europol report, I am not making the claim that this allegation does not exist, one that could be expanded upon, as I would certainly feel infinitely less inclined to be sympathetic towards them, were that to be the case, as well as that it would not seem to be affirmed, as per the set-up of the article, by the human resources section, which merely claims that they have become a "mass phenomenon". Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Some people accuse Murat Karayılan, Cemîl Bayik, Duran Kalkan, Besê Hozat, Sozdar Avesta, Bahoz Erdal and Mustafa Karasu for being agents of Satan, secretly spying for Kurdistan Regional Government and Israel. 155.137.27.93 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So, everyone but Öcalan, then? Phew, it's a good thing he had that change of heart.

Do people actually allege for them to be in league with the devil? I feel like you were just being polemical, but I'm, anyways, curious. I've heard a good bit of rumors about the PKK, but never allegations of Satanism. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Chnage "PKK is a terrorist organization" to "PKK is a Kuridsh militant organization". 51.6.130.5 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While it is obvious that PKK is a terrorist organization. On what basis did you accept this change without any resources? 31.223.61.163 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

While I too think it's a terrorist organization as well, it's an organization, and for the sake of objectivity it is best to just call them an organization, and also to clearly inform readers that this organization is designated as a terrorist organization/entity, or an organization involved in terrorist activities amongst other things with correct references. (Eg: Drug trafficking reports published by U.S., Turkish and some other countries' authorities, which can be seen as empirical evidence backed by proof of crime&misconduct) Utku Mun (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Funding edit.

As anyone following the subject closely would know. U.S. designates P.K.K. as a terrorist organization for a long while, yet they have been officially funding P.K.K. since 2018, which was published previously. Also in 2023 military spending bill passed by the house of representatives this support to fund "partner forces" in Syria, includes P.K.K, according to bill(which hardly passed 219-210) the funding will continue until the end of 2024. The subject "partner forces" Also include other organizations designated as terrorist organizations by various countries. So in effect U.S. funds this organization which it designates as a terrorist organization officially even though it contradicts executive order 13224.

I think this should be shared under funding as well, I am not good at writing stuff out of my expertise(biology) but a simple browser search yields official references, and I think this is a vital piece of information to share with public who do not spend much time researching things and look up to Wikipedia for necessary knowledge.

S. T. Utku Mun Utku Mun (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Lol the PKK is not the same as the PYD/YPG. They are indeed related groups, but that wouldn’t mean the US supports the PKK just because they support their sister org Serok Ayris (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Nato needs to be removed on the list

I clicked the reference link and it leads to a page regarding Sweden, Finland, and Turkey Nato joining agreement. Nato does not have a terrorist list. Countries have their own terrorist list. It's dishonest to put up NATO. 70.29.13.216 (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

European Union and NATO

Are we really sure that the PKK sees these as enemies. Seems like an extremely far fetch. 87.3.139.54 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The EU, which has considered the PKK a terrorist organisation for over two decades; and NATO, which Turkey is a member of? Them being enemies of the PKK is "an extremely far fetch" to you? Yue🌙 06:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, since the PKK operates freely in the EU and even seeks support from European governments. PKK doesn't target the European Union, if it did, you would see results of that. I'm sorry to say, but the European terrorist classification are merely leftover crumbs from PKK's early period, and has nothing to do with PKK's opinion of them. 87.3.139.54 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

He has a point, many European Union countries house PKK affiliates knowingly and willingly. Sweden is known to have a pseudo-alliance with the PKK; one of the reasons Turkey was so harsh on them during their NATO membership request. It is pretty far fetched to make that conclusion just because of that one reason. As far as I know, the PKK has never declared the EU as its enemy. Krqftan (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The status of the Kurdish language in Turkey

"Turkey views the demand for education in Kurdish language or the teaching of the Kurdish language as supporting terrorist activities by the PKK."

The source used in this statement is from 2008, and therefore very outdated. The current state of affairs is that Kurdish is an elective in school if you so choose. There is a news channel in Kurdish, TRT "Kurdi" and the use of the Kurdish language isn't prohibited at all

I feel that this should be changed to better reflect the current situation VeryEpikk (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion linked above when I tried to get in the news several related articles are in a big mess but I am not going to fix them. If you or anyone else can do anything that would be great. I hope the peace process succeeds this time so the insurgency articles can become history and be condensed instead of being the sprawling mess they are now. Good luck Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)