Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Murat Karayilan statement from the Daily Telegraph

According to this reference[[1]], Murat Karayilan, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph claimed that US officers have regular meetings with the PKK in Northern Iraq. No where in that link, does Murat Karayilan state he has met with US officers. Actually, he does say this, Murat Karayilan, a Kurdish guerilla commander, told The Daily Telegraph that Teheran had originally tried to recruit the outlawed groups to fight coalition troops in Iraq. The US and Britain came to Iraq to establish a democratic system, but this scared the Iranians, so they negotiated with us and offered many things to attack the coalition. Meaning, the Iranians had been negotiating with the PKK. Therefore, I will be changing said sentence. Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

US Department of State report

• http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/8848994.asp?gid=229&sz=76930
• http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103707.htm

“ Austria [...] However, Austria failed to coordinate fully law enforcement activities with other states against the militant Kurdish separatist group, Kongra Gel/Kurdistan Workers’ Party (KGK/PKK), an EU- and U.S.-designated terrorist group. For example, in mid-year, Austria initially detained and quickly released KGK/PKK operative Riza Altun and allowed him to board a plane for northern Iraq, despite the fact that he had fake documents and faced charges in France and an extradition request from Turkey. In November, Austria failed to detain Remzi Kartal, a KGK/PKK leader known to be traveling to Austria who was wanted by INTERPOL. [...] ”

“ Belgium [...] Belgian authorities remained concerned about potential terror activities involving groups from Algeria and North Africa, and have investigated groups such as the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM), the DHKP/C, a far right group with links to neo-Nazi groups, and a cell suspected of training members for attacks in Iraq. The KGK/PKK is a known presence, with television production studios in Brussels. The KGK/PKK continued to exploit Belgium to raise illicit financing for violence in Turkey and its camps in northern Iraq. [...] ”

“ Cyprus [...] Kurdish-origin communities exist on both sides of the island. The KGK/PKK has a presence in Cyprus, although its activities generally were limited to fundraising and transit en route to third countries; authorities believed there was little risk the group would conduct operations there. Cyprus maintained that it was fulfilling all responsibilities with respect to the EU designation of the KGK/PKK as a terrorist organization. [...] ”

“ Denmark [...] Denmark completed implementation of two counterterrorism legislation packages that were passed by Parliament in 2006. These new measures criminalized the recruitment of persons to terrorism and the training of others to assist in committing terrorist acts, including financing terrorism. These new counterterrorism measures enhanced the Danish government's ability to investigate and prevent terrorism and other serious crimes. In March, Parliament passed additional legislation that prohibited private persons from purchasing fertilizer with ammonium nitrate levels of more than 28 percent, which could be used for improvised explosive devices. Denmark worked closely with the United States on UN and other multilateral counterterrorism efforts, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and in international nonproliferation groups, such as PSI and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. We note however, that Roj-TV, a KGK/PKK affiliated media outlet, continued to operate in Denmark. [...] ”

“ France [...] In February, counterterrorism police detained 16 Kurds suspected of links to the KGK/PKK; all were charged with various crimes including extortion, money laundering, and terrorism financing; and were suspected of providing financial support to the KGK/PKK to fund terrorist attacks in Turkey. Riza Altun, who has been wanted in Turkey for many years on terrorism charges, was among those arrested. After being released on bail, he fled France for Austria and was allowed to depart Austria for northern Iraq. Altun is still wanted in France and is being prosecuted in absentia. [...] ”

“ Italy [...] KGK/PKK affiliated organizations maintained a presence in Italy and were thought to have links with affiliated charitable organizations that maintained Italian branches. [...] ”

“ Sweden [...] The Government of Sweden placed a high priority on increasing international cooperation against terrorism. Swedish authorities considered the threat of terrorist attacks inside Sweden to be low, but they monitored a number of known terrorists and terrorist organizations within their borders, including al-Qa’ida (AQ), Ansar al-Islam/Sunna, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Hizb Al-Tahrir, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, and the Kongra-Gel/Kurdistan Worker’s Party (KGK/PKK). They provided logistical and financial support to their respective organizations abroad. [...] ”

“ Switzerland [...] Swiss companies are slowly increasing the pressure on the Swiss government to allow them to participate in the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) initiative, but Swiss legal barriers preventing Swiss firms from being active participants remained in place. Article 271, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Penal Code forbids foreign government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from validating or contacting Swiss companies that export. Strict Swiss privacy laws also make initiatives such as C-TPAT difficult to implement.

Due in part to increased antiterrorism activities in neighboring EU countries, several terrorist organizations, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kongra-Gel/Kurdistan Worker’s Party (KGK/PKK), and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), have a presence in Switzerland. Existing Swiss law and practice prevent the government from listing these entities as terrorist organizations. [...]

”

Just a few exerts that can be used in the article. -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pkk is in the a lot of countrie's terorist list

Pkk is in the a lot of countrie's terorist list but i cant see it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.26.199 (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See List of countries and organizations that list the PKK as a terrorist group. Khoikhoi 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Human Trafficking?

This is listed in the box of acctivities but is not referred to nor substantiated in the text. Who says so ? Undoubtedly its enemies will say so, but they would do, wouldn't they? Furthermore there is a big difference between Human trafficking and People smuggling.--Streona (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PKK and EU terror list

The group is not removed yet, and it will probably not be removed. We can mention the court decision, but we need to also mention that the decision was on procedural grounds. "EU nations decided in April 2007 to inform groups and individuals when they are placed on the terror list." [2] PKK was listed in 2002. Osman Ocalan's application was dismissed in 2005. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From MSN, Kurdish group no longer on EU terror list, European Court rules that black listing rebel group, its political arm illegal. The EU's 27 national governments said, however, they had no intention of removing the PKK or any other groups from the list, sticking to previously stated justifications that it had already implemented "a clearer and more transparent procedure" by which it adds people or groups to its blacklist. Today's ruling does not affect the validity of this list, the EU said in a statement, concluding that its interpretation of the ruling does not include the removal of the PKK or others from its list. So the PKK is still on the terrorist list, regardless of the court ruling. Kansas Bear (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry somehow I pushed enter before entering the whole summary. 2) is that there is no change in situation with other countries. So Cyrus' rephrasing was misleading. There was a trial in 2006 (4 years after EU's listing of PKK as a terrorist organization) that an organization that was labeled terrorist had won, as EU had not informed them before listing them. The court universalized their own verdict, supposedly to even the ones that were labeled as terrorist org before that verdict. Apparently PKK won't be removed from the list (Just today, several PKK members were arrested in Belgium, a country where outright killers had roamed free (despite security camera footage of the killing) for many years just because they used only semi automatic rifles while killing a leading member of the second richest family in Turkey, the one that is more popular among the public. Soon after that the head of the family died, and now those killers are in two different EU countries, ttbomk.) 128.211.202.45 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PLease refer to http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/terrorlists.html where it clearly says that

"April 2008 - CFI strikes another blow to EU "terrorist list" - legality of "reformed" procedures remains in doubt. The EU Court of First Instance has overturned decisions by the Council of the EU to include the Kurdish organisations PKK and Kongra Gel on the EU "terrorist list" (04.04.2008). In Case T-253/04 bought on behalf of Kongra Gel and 10 other individuals, the EU court ruled that the organisation was not in a position "to understand, clearly and unequivocally, the reasoning" that led the member states' governments to include them. It reached the same conclusion in Case T-229/02, bought by Osman Ocalan on behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). "

Can someone please comment further on this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.127.7 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

please add this to previous post

"http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=t-229/02&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.127.7 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though it states, here[[3]] the PKK has been removed from the EU terror list. It also states in this same article, "The EU nations are obliged to implement the EU court rulings. However, recent changes made by the EU are likely to lead to months, if not years, of complex legal wrangling between the governments, the EU courts and those appealing to get their names off the list before the situation is resolved.." At the bottom of the article, it also states, "The EU's list, last updated in December, includes 54 persons and 48 groups and entities. The next review of the list is planned for June." I would be in favor of keeping the page with the PKK still listed(since technically it still is) until the EU review their list in June. At which time, if the PKK is not listed by the EU, then apply the appropriate editing. There should be, however, mention of the court case and its impact on the PKK's status. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see pkk_remains_on_eu_terror_list. Unfortunately BBC and co are not doing a good job updating info recently. Regarding the title of the section, PKK was a terrorist org even before 2002, and even more so, as their attacks did almost diminish in the 21st century, it stayed like that until Pkk was revived after US' Iraq invasion. Now Pkk is on its way to become a Syrian terrorist org. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we can always state "PKK was listed as a terrorist organization between date1 and date2" sort of naming should PKK be removed from the list. -- Cat ^chi? 12:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new section for 'legal status'. It can be a subsection of section "2008 to date", and linked to that Wikipedia article listing the states which have designated PKK as a terrorist organization. We should mention the court decision, and Council of Europe's/EU's decision. We can give a timeline for the legailty, if we do not want it to be part of "2008 to date" section. Also, do all Council of Europe member states recognize PKK as a terrorist organization? That would make the list bigger (Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc. ) 128.211.202.45 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PKK is still on the EU's list of terrorist organisations. The court's decision was about a specific list and the related procedural errors. Everytime EU publishes the new list it replaces the old ones. The latest list is from July 2008 and it includes PKK. Also, the decision blamed EU for not informing PKK about the decision. EU has provided the required information for the representatives of the PKK, and, thus, the procedural errors no longer remain a valid issue for complaints. 193.0.254.41 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Guy from Finland

Relations to Kurdish nationalist movements?

What are PKK's relations to Iraqi based (and to a lesser degree, Iran based) Kurdish movements? I can't imagine the other Kurdish movements, even though they, too, aspire to Kurdish national autonomy being friendly to PKK's hardline brand of communism. So how has PKK interacted with KDP, PUK and the Peshmerga fighters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.231.156 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's somewhere like Kurdistan. Peshmerges are the soldier of the Kurdish-part of the Iraq, but they also gives help to PKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Status in Iraq

I have heard that the PKK have virtually legal status in Iraqi Kurdistan, even as far as having offices in Hawler and Makhmur. Anyone have more specific details on / can clarify this? 195.96.131.65 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added an NPOV box to this article as the tone and much of the unsourced information reeks of bias. The box of activities is particularly egregious. its like the us state dept wrote this article as propaganda. Blockader (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The box of activities is sourced item by item. What do you mean "unsourced"? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are more than 80 different sources listed in this article. Some of these sources are; MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, articles from CEU Political Science Journal, also published sources such as "The Structure of Kurdish Society and the Struggle for a Kurdish state." or "The Kurds and the Future of Turkey." I would like to learn more about the factual base of this argument, if the user kindly provide them... --InRe.Po (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest (Jan. 2009) NPOV tag shall be removed in one week unless someone makes a case for its inclusion. We don't tag articles with NPOV tags without a justification. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of citation, the last sentence under the section "History" seems to fail NPOV. "Since Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present, according to Turkey, Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, and US forces have not done enough to combat with the organization and secure the Iraqi-Turkish border, causing tensions between the Iraqi and Turkish governments.[25][26] PKK Guerilla army." Instead of stating it as a fact with a source, wouldn't it be more NPOV to state that "Since Post-Invastion Iraq 2003-present, Turkey's perception that Massoud Marzani, leader of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, and US forces have not done enough to combat the organization and secure the Iraqi-Turkish border has caused tension between the Iraqi and Turkish governments"? (Not to mention, either way this sentence needs edited for readability.) Dr.queso (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Human Trafficking?

This seems to have been brought up before, but can anyone point to any credible source that says the PKK has engaged in human trafficking (By the definition given for human trafficking on wikipedia). The source linked to is an article written by the U.S. Ambassador, hardly an unbiased source, on the U.S. State Department's website no less. On top of that, it refers to "human smuggling" rather than "human trafficking" in that article, quite a big difference. Human trafficking implies a kind of slave trade, where as human smuggling is when the people being "smuggled" WANT to be doing that. I may have inadvertently messed up the position of the table when I was editing it, sorry. But please do not revert it back to saying "human trafficking" until you can provide a credible source to back it up. If you feel that the original source is somehow sufficient for this claim, please go back and read this paragraph over again enough times until you understand the multiple points I'm making that create an impossibility for that to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.31.25 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

pkk tam bir orospu çocuğudurrrrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.247.159 (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The archiving of this page was never done right and never fixed

The history of the errors can be deduced throughout the page history. It could be fixed with enough effort. I am otherwise committed and lack the time, but I am noting it here because someone who reads this in future may care sufficiently to make the effort. — ¾-10 00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

TURKISH NATIONALISM

It is really sad that this article has been deliberately edited and has been influenced by fascistic remarks. I was hoping for information that is genuine and unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.56.245 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

People would help if you had pointed your finger on the issues you claim to be "fascist". This is not a forum to express your feelings. Please point out unsourced and biased parts, otherwise the article is solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.75 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Size

In the infobox article says there were 90.000 militans in the 90s and it doesn't provide any source for this. In the article it says 17.000 at its peak and it provides a source. I'm changing the infobox to show the proper information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.131.29 (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC) + - :Now infobox has been changed to 50,000 without any source. I'm changing that to 17,000 again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.75 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to add this article to the list in which NPOV is not correct. The article functions the actions to explain mainly apologolistina Turkey and the motives of PKK are not explained like from the negative opinion.

The adding to the terror list is only a power talking politics ordered by the USA and Turkey which is funny so far that PKK is the important ally of the USA in Iraq because there are few organisations able to the maintenance of law and order in Iraq.

Provide data from reliable, third party sources, or the content will be removed. Active Banana (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Victims of war

Ok. I'll accept that David McDowells "Modern History of the Kurds" does not name the killers, so for the moment let's leave it at more than 37 000 killed by the PKK and the State of Turkey. It is misleading to give the impression that the PKK alone have been killers. I also added a sourced sentence on the effects of the Turkish State's response to the PKK armed campaign.--Vindheim (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it has been reverted. The BBC reference is quite clear. This is the second time you've distorted a reference. It is misleading to post and/or use a reference that in no way supports your statement. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article does not state who the killers were, nor who were the victims. If you have a clear source for either of these breakdowns of the total of 37 000 + it would be helpful. --Vindheim (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody appears to have deleted a quotation from the Turkish Military. The sentence ends with a colon, a footnote, but no quotation. Could somebody restore that quotation please, as it is deeply unhelpful to most readers to have only one POV sourced. Theonemacduff (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

pkk are freedom fighters.

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

This is an encyclopedia, where facts are presented; we note that some people, some cultures and some nations consider the PKK as freedom fighters, and we also note that some nations and organisations consider them terrorists. Wikipedia does not choose between the two, but just reports what other people say. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

here sources: pkk are not terorists

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

Such information can be evaluated and incorporated into the article, as is that which declares the PKK to be a terrorist organisation. Where there are two contradictory but well sourced positions, Wikipedia includes both, LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

we should write soemthing about jitem and ergenekon terror orga.who killed civil kurds and said to tvs that was pkk!

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

You will need to find sources, if it is to be included in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Reneklion, 29 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The PKK is a Marxist-Leninist organization. This is a central tenet to their ideology maybe even more important than Kurdish nationalism, yet I don't see it anywhere. Please add this into the lead and body of the article

Reneklion (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide a reliable source for that information, and then we can determine whether/how to add the info to the article. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PKK in russia and switzerland NOT terror organisation!

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

Please see previous replies to your suggestions; we include all relevant information, according to the weight of the available sources. We do not list every nation or organisation that describes the PKK as a non terrorist organisation, as we do not every one that does. The different consideration as regards the status of the organisation is generally noted, along with a few examples, within the article already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

official leader?

It says in the article that the "official leader" is Murat Karayılan. How can a unofficial terrorist group have an 'official' leader? PKK's translation is Kurdish Workers' Party, but this 'party' isn't registered anywhere as an official political party or an organization or an association, so there can't be an 'official' leader. Again, because this 'organization' isn't under any country's laws and illegal, it can't have a official leader. I'm not going to delete the word official by editing the article, you guys keep talking under this topic, if a lot of people agree that there can't be an 'official' leader of an illegal organization, somebody should erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.115.109 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The entity known as PKK/Kurdish Workers' Party exists, as this article testifies - although it may not be recognised as a legitimate party by those nations within whose borders the party claims to represent, and is denoted a terrorist organisation by many. That organisation has its own hierachy and management, and it has been determined that the highest official in that capacity is Murat Karayilan. There are a number of organisations that are not recognised by the concerned authorities, and for many reasons - it is not Wikipedia's remit to guage the authenticity of any group, but merely report how it is noted by reliable sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding redactions

This page is for discussing the article, and not the subject. Further statements about what pkk is or is not, what Turkey is and is not, what who has done to whom, and what who has not done to whom, is inappropriate for this page. From now on, I shall be redacting any such unsupported statements. Suggestions and comments about improving the article will continue to be welcomed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about some non-Turkish, non-clearly-biased sources for this article?

See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.12.148 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, YOU can help fix it!!!! Find some reliable third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Illegal drug trafficking by PKK

@User:LessHeard vanU. We can not consider this as WP:UNDUE, because we are not talking about "some" members, as you said. We are talking about the most important members of the PKK, such as Murat Karayılan, leader of the PKK, and other high-ranking members and founding members of PKK, such as Cemil Bayık, Ali Rıza Altun and Duran Kalkan. How can you say WP:UNDUE? We are not talking about a local branch of an organisation. We are talking about the top of the organisation. Secondly, the U.S. Department of the Treasury did not designated these top members as a "normal" narcotics trafficker, but as "specially" designated narcotics traffickers. Hence, making this information only more important. --Randam (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1148.aspx --Randam (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is in regard to the group, not its members, founders, or high ranking figures; the PKK or Kongra-Gel has not been designated as an illegal drug trafficking entity, and therefore the determination that several of its members has correctly remains in the body of the article - since those activities are allegedly in regard to funding the purposes of the party - but not in the lead. In short, the lead should note the important details regarding the party only - not some of its membership, even the major figures. You will note I did not remove the content, only move it back to the main body where it is relevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Treasury (also) speaks about the organisation. I quote the Treasury: "Active in southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iraq, and supported by some of Europe's Kurdish community, the Kongra-Gel was designated as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker for its more than two decades-long participation in drug trafficking." Source: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg318.aspx

Are you convinced? --Randam (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that wording, although it goes on to state that the sanctions are effected against the individuals concerned. Regardless, the notability of the subject and therefore what goes in the lead is not determined by whether the US regards it as a drug trafficking organisation but that it is internationally recognised as fostering an armed campaign for a sovereign Kurdish nation - and that some regard its actions as terrorism and some as freedom fighters. The sources you have produced should of course be included in the body, but by placing them or the inferences to them in the lead you are giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to that issue. I would hesitate to suggest it - because I am only too familiar with the partisan nature of very many of the correspondents here - but it might be better to find a consensus on whether it should be included. Other than that, you might wish to have a(nother - since I came to this article as a neutral party) third opinion by a neutral party on the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On a further note, it should be noted that they sources you are using are WP:Primary ones. You would be able to cite to them, but you should try to find reliable secondary sources as the major references. As I am sure this is only a technical exercise, in that a good secondary source should be easy to locate, I am not inclined to remove them or the content they support. I have, however, again removed reference to drug trafficking from the lead per my comments above. Really, you do have to establish a consensus first, and it is not WP:BRD to put them back. I have overlooked the inference to WP:EW, as I am fairly confident in my ability to apply policy and guideline to my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Unknown PKK member.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Unknown PKK member.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:PKK Members Kurdistan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:PKK Members Kurdistan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

pkk and ocalan are not terorists.see true

[redacted per WP:NOTFORUM and my earlier notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)]

File:Flag of PUK.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of PUK.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 13 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NATO, EU, terrorist listing

NATO does not make rulings on such things. The NATO figure quoted in the article wasn't speaking for NATO (Turkey is a member of NATO, of course). Associated Press, a reliable Secondary Source, reported in 2008 that an EU Court overturned the PKK's terror status, adding "The PKK remains on an EU blacklist", prohibiting organizations from doing business with it. You need to find a reliable, secondary source, to contradict this. So far, the user has just found a page on an EU website. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

LardoBalsamico, please see this page on Wikipedia Policy "No Original Research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the rules. http://www.abhaber.com/ozelhaber.php?id=10760 here is another source which is Turkish+English.LardoBalsamico (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's still not a reliable secondary source... Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

PKK is a terrorist organization

[redacted per WP:FORUM and my earlier post. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)]

drug trafficking

Who ever wrote about PKK, here in English, are not neutral. For many years I follow news about PKK. Especially part that sayin, "PKK involve in drug traficcing" also saying that 300 PKK members arrested for delaing with drug. If such thing is correct I woud see such news on Turkish newspaper. Turkish newspapers only saying PKK trafficing drug but they don't give any specific evidence. Here also saying 300 members arrested but no any name given as an example. It is treu both Turkey and PKK killed sivilians but not drug trafficing, at least not o a large scale otherwise I would witness that a specific event given on a newspaper. Person who wrote on PKK here is acting as an agent of Turkish state. He should be impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.213.21 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people have written this article, some pro Turkish and some pro PKK but most neutral. The fact that the PKK has financed its activity partly through drug trafficking is well supported by the sources provided. However, as you might see from earlier discussions, it has been recognised that the notability of the PKK is unrelated to the fact that they are alleged to be drug traffickers and the information is not prominently displayed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Kurdish PKK members

The PKK cannot be classified as a purely Kurdish "organisation" as there is a large number of ethnic Turks and individuals from other ethnicities who are members of this "organization".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk • contribs)

The aim of the group is to establish a homeland for ethnic Kurds, under which definition it is a Kurdish organisation. Removing Kurd (and adding "Terror") does not change that well referenced fact - so, please, do not do so again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

pkk not terrorist !

[redacted per WP:NOTFORUM and my earlier notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)]

[redacted per WP:NOTFORUM and my earlier notice.] LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pkk Militant Terror Group

To be objective we should state that pkk is a terrorist group, as in the Al-Qaeda page. In Al-Qaeda page it is clearly stated that Al-Qaeda is a militant islamist group, but in PKK page why we can not say PKK is a militant terrorist group. I tried to edit twice in this way but it is rejected because of naturality of wikipedia. But they are in the wikipedia list of terrorist groups, shows us pkk in canada,EU,UK,US terrorist groups list. Ermancetin (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It already is mentioned at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, "The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization internationally by a number of states and organizations, including the United States.". Which is the correct form supported by reference(s). Whereas, al-Qaeda is not mentioned as a terrorist organization in the lede. Continued insertion of "terrorist" is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem understanding this, I will be more than happy to notify an Admin to help you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just it is mentioned at the 2nd paragpraph, but also whole article is about the pkk terrorism and its effects. This statement is should given in the definition sentence. This is the confusing part. Like the Al-Qaeda page [it says militant] we should put the militant or terrorist group expression. Ermancetin (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. PKK is mentioned in the lede(2nd paragraph) as a terrorist organization in the correct way. Your opinion that the word terrorist needs to be in the opening sentence is unfounded, considering no other terrorist organization is mentioned in that fashion(ie.al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you do find one, change "terrorist" to "militant" per Wikipedia policy. Only by stating that, "(organization x) is labeled a terrorist group by (nation y)." can we say an organization is a terrorist organization. The lede sentence must be NPOV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Bear, I added the word "terrorist" to the first sentence, since the word "terrorist" is in the first paragraph of all of your examples(al Qaeda, Hezbullah and Hamas).Check your examples before you write anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.39.113 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

Kurdistan Workers' Party is right? Wasn't that name must be Kurdistan Labour Party?--Martianmister (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Kurdistan Workers' Party is right. The name PKK stands for Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, which means exactly that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.24.227 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

terrorist end of discussion

PKK is known as terrorist by the majority of the countries including USA and US. It is time Wikipedia acknowledges this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.35.56 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tak Flag.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tak Flag.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tak Flag.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

this bad article on behalf of the wikipedia. one-sided and propaganda.This article is organized anti-turkey persons. pkk supporters packed with ideas. publications that are party to open based on a lie. black propaganda used against turkey. maliciously manipulated the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salako1999 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 487

Per this source[4], it states that the hijacker, "was a lone sympathizer acting in support of the Kurdish cause and not a trained PKK member". Therefore I have removed said paragraph. The paragraph can be restored if a reliable source for it can be found.
"On October 29, 1998, Turkish Airlines Flight 487 on a Boeing 737 named Ayvalık en route from Adana to Istanbul was hijacked by a PKK militant on the Republic Day. The hijacker, armed with a pistol and a hand grenade demanded to fly to Zurich, Switzerland via Sofia in Bulgaria." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chemical Warfare?

The article suggests that the PKK has used sarin and other chemical warfare substances to poison water tanks used by the Turkish Airforces yet haven't pointed to any references to support this strong claim. I think the claimer should clearly show supportive reference to clarify the source of these allegations or these statements should be excluded from the article for it to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.18.36 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is terrorist? Really.

[redacted per WP:NOTFORUM and my earlier comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)]

Who is terrorist is a good question. Let me give you a quick reply. United States is terrorist. Israel is terrorist. European Union is terrorist. If you could satisfied with my answer i would be glad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.133.216 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Confederation

The article is currently a redirect of "Democratic Confederation" - but the text refers only to the one in rojava, not to the proposed post-nation state political system itself. I propose the redirect be removed and "Democratic Confederation" be created as a standalone article. I doubt the western kurds will be the only group to identify with this structure once the idea spreads a little. It can be said that the Zapatistas are also along a similar path. Abdullah Ocalan proposes it as a generic system although ideal for adoption for minorities within nation states such as the kurds, in this book: www.freeocalan.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 09/ Ocalan-Democratic-Confederalism.pdf ale 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shomon (talk • contribs)

I agree comletely. There should be a separate article dedicated to "Democratic confederalism". Charles Essie (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Allies and opponents?

Most articles for armed groups have a list of it's allies and opponents featured in an infobox. The Kurdistan Workers' Party (or more specifically it's armed wing, the People's Defence Force) should have one too. Charles Essie (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PKK

PKK is a novel will never end, a song that beat in the heart of humanity #RemovePKKfromUSterrorListNow they are freedom fighters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraqi man10 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire ended?

Is this correct that the ceasefire has ended?

http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2015/07/12/pkk-opens-fire-on-minibus-in-northeastern-turkey-one-civilian-dead-two-injured — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.247.79 (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

references

vice.com and thewire are not sound references.

I have no sources to indicate pkk fought against Islamic State.

YPG (another kurdish organization- not terrorists) fought against IS

PKK threatened turkey and accused her for helping IS instead of fighting against IS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.145.33 (talk • contribs)

Vice.com and TheWire are reliable sources as far as I know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Kurdistan Workers' Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005125114/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/07/83999.htm to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/07/83999.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111063032/http://www.worldbulletin.net:80/news_detail.php?id=8226 to http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=8226
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070708054622/http://www.oranim.ac.il/courses/meast/extra/RISE%20AND%20FALL%20THE%20PKK.htm to http://www.oranim.ac.il/courses/meast/extra/RISE%20AND%20FALL%20THE%20PKK.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720073857/http://turkey.usembassy.gov/askarchives.html to http://turkey.usembassy.gov/askarchives.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010065227/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=77478 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=77478
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070212194259/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/1998/int/980330/europe.a_hellenic_haven.19.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980330/europe.a_hellenic_haven.19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119040816/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/renewal_of_directions_141210.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/renewal_of_directions_141210.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214110101/http://www.globalmarch.org/resourcecentre/world/belgium.pdf to http://www.globalmarch.org/resourcecentre/world/belgium.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070831223856/http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/28B052FC3CCE4009CA2570DF000FB458?OpenDocument to http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/28B052FC3CCE4009CA2570DF000FB458?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130419173404/http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/july/turkey_iran_31704~print.shtml to http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/july/turkey_iran_31704~print.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Libertarians

I removed the libertarian-socialism ideology after reading the source which does not mention libertarian anything. i made several attempts locating a source, found none. the ideology was added in july of 2014 without discussion. if anyone has a source with the party or anyone else mentioning libertarian-socialism, plz cite, otherwise, i suggest we remove. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference is to Bookchin I think, whom Öcalan was influenced by in his later writings. It is being practiced in Rojava, by TEVDEM that co-exists with PYD in the region as an anti-statist mode of governing. This being said, Communalism is a much more concise way to say it without confusing the hell out of people who see libertarians and socialists in one sentence and freak out. Perhaps the reason for pointing it out was to emphasize that it is anti-statist compared to the former strategy of a Kurdish Nation State --d 79.141.161.20 (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The reference Darkstar1st removed described the (contemporary) PKK as communalist and credited Bookchin by name. fi (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says it's "libertarian-socialism" if we're gonna label it that way. You asserted (in ANI? can't remember where) that communalist = libertarian-socialism, but we need RS to say that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article on libertarian socialism or any of the numerous others that say, unequivocally, that one is a sub-category of the other. As I brought up on ANI, we don't need a reference saying someone's a "writer" if we already have a reference describing that person as a "novelist." If you have some credible reason to believe that novelists are not writers, that's worth discussing. fi (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I read Libertarian_socialism#Social ecology and Communalism. It does not support User:Finx's contention. Indeed the section in question is mainly uncited (and therefore unsupported).-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Open Bookchin's Social Ecology and Communalism to page 12, 101 or 108. It takes maybe two minutes of research to verify what I said. fi (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, how about the citation for this very statement in the libertarian socialism lead: Murray Bookchin's Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism which contains the word "libertarian" in practically every other paragraph. It's right there. How many more sources do we need? fi (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That ref explains the influence of Murray Bookchin. His philosophy is that of libertarianism, there are countless works describing this. Also see Murray_Bookchin#Legacy_and_influence on how his libertarian socialist ideas influenced the PKK. --Mrjulesd (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Influences != group label. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is one of those fish or cut bait situations, to use the more polite expression. If you would like to dispute the (AFAIK) absolutely universal and exhaustively sourced understanding that communalism and libertarian municipalism belong to the libertarian socialist umbrella, please challenge that with some kind of reasoning and then let's go and correct the lead on libertarian socialism. If you're not challenging that, then communalist means libsoc and we need to stop wasting our time here. fi (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Look just accept that you're wrong. It's the grown up thing to do. --Mrjulesd (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not editors. Please just find and quote any RS that says something close to "PKK is libertarian socialist". Don't even care what language it's in. Just any source that says this will suffice. Trying to say the group is influenced by so-and-so or was founded by somebody who believed something... that's WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL I give up. If you think that's OR I'm speechless. --Mrjulesd (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, I want to be wrong here. But the sources you're offering are not sufficient. If it's as obvious as you claim, please just find one of the surely plenty of RS that say such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So, just to be clear and recap real quick:

• you agree that the source identifies the PKK as communalist, according to the PKK, in the Bookchin sense
• you have read, for example, the lead on the "libertarian socialism" article and checked its citation

... and... the objection is, what, exactly? fi (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's do a quick Google search here:

From OpenDemocracy: "Since Öcalan's arrest in 1999, the PKK's ideology has changed considerably, so much so that they have all but denounced nationalism in favour of a form of libertarian socialism."

From New Politics: "The No State Solution: Institutionalizing Libertarian Socialism in Kurdistan".

Really, given the plethora of sources detailing the prominence of Bookchin/communalism/social ecology in PKK's programme, this literalist insistence on having a source explicitly spell out "libertarian socialism" is kind of ridiculous. If PKK is communalist, and communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, then PKK is libertarian socialist—by simple transitive logic. If this upsets you in some way, my sincerest condolences, but this is starting to push towards WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On the apparent confusion between the US and UK english meanings of Libertarianism (as stated in it's own wikipedia article), if the article is US english, then no, rojava is not libertarian, but if it's UK or for an international audience of english speakers, then the international meaning of libertarian is anarchist. If david Graeber and various other anarchists' visits and articles are seen as biased, this article: http://www.cvltnation.com/anarchists-vs-isis-the-revolution-in-syria-nobodys-talking-about/ and this one comparing the democratic confederation of rojava to the zapatistas in chiapas might help: http://kurdishquestion.com/index.php/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/exclusive-on-kq-from-chiapas-to-rojava-more-than-just-coincidences.html#edn3 ale 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again

Someone keeps adding Libertarian Socialism here. The most recent attempt [5] doesnt even contain the term Libertarian. I suggest it be removed again until we can find a source. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally suggest that you actually read the above thread, where sources were in fact provided. Here are a few more, if the above were insufficient:

• ROAR Magazine: "while the study and practice of libertarian socialist ideas among the KCK leadership and rank-and-file is undoubtedly a positive development" (e.g.)
• Dissent : "(Öcalan's) philosophy has much in common with anarchism, participatory democracy, and libertarian socialism"
• Owen Jones for The Guardian: "Once Stalinist, the PKK has evolved, now drawing inspiration from the libertarian socialism of the US theoretician Murray Bookchin."
• Interview by Communalist (i.e., libertarian socialist) activist group New Compass with David Graeber: "Under Öcalan’s leadership the PKK has changed from a Marxist-Leninist to a libertarian socialist movement"

Again, the abundance of sources which detail the importance of Communalism and social ecology in PKK's current platform should make this a non-issue. Bookchin's ideas fall squarely within the realm of libertarian socialism, and if these ideas inform a major part of PKK's ideology, then by transitive relation PKK's ideology can be classed as libertarian socialist. To pooh-pooh that on the grounds that the exact phrase "PKK is libertarian socialist" isn't present an a given source is like demanding a citation that explicitly states that squares are quadrilaterals. Understand as well that the most common US usage of the term "libertarian" is not the Platonic form of libertarianism broadly construed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

War crimes

PKK(and its affliates in Syria/Iraq/Iran which are all acknowledged as one extended organization) is well known for recruiting child soldiers, conducting extra judicial killings, killing civilians, ethnic cleansing and more this needs to be in here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Any reliable sources that they recruit child soldiers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ferakp: Here you go. 1- http://www.refworld.org/docid/498805f0c.html 2- http://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c428.html 3- http://thekebabandcamel.com/the-child-soldiers-of-the-pkk-and-ypg/ 4- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/07/yazidi-child-soldiers-take-revenge-on-isis.html 5- http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/150720151 6- http://factsonturkey.org/20634/ankara-allegedly-allowed-pkk-to-recruit-child-soldiers-during-ceasefire/ 7- http://yu.edu/uploadedfiles/Admissions/Events/YUNMUN/Position_Papers/UNHRC/ChildSoldiersPaper.pdf 8- http://www.unicef.org/turkey/hm/hm1.html 9- http://www.syriadeeply.org/op-eds/2016/02/9765/war-excuse-pyd-deployment-child-soldiers/?lang= AND 10- http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/231470

1990s suicide bombings?

It's mentioned in this article that the PKK has carried out a series of suicide bombings in the 1990s. However, the claim isn't supported by a source. Has the PKK ever taken responsibility for these attacks it has allegedly carried out or is this similar to the situation where seeing now with Turkey claiming the PKK is carrying out suicide bombing attacks to justify its current fight against the group? I'm genuinely curious to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.179.58 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the PKK has claimed responsibility, but I found what looks like reliable, published material about the PKK's female suicide bombers in the '90s:

• Women as Terrorists: Mothers, Recruiters, and Martyrs
• Female Suicide Bombers
• The Motivations of Female Suicide Bombers from a Communication Perspective

I will cite them in the article.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I could only find the numbers in the last source, so I decided to only cite that one and another one that I found. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We could also use better citations for the sentence under the History section, "The PKK has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, such as Turkey, France, Belgium and Iraq." The citation in English is from an article about a bombing in Turkey that only speculates as to the PKK's involvement, hardly enough evidence for as strong a statement as the above sentence. The other citation, well, that's in Turkish, and that's not very helpful to an audience reading Wikipedia English, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.58.26 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template

I think the military organization template should be added to this article. PKK is a military organization. Not an political party. Just because it name is has 'party' word does not mean it is an political party. Bruskom ^{talk to me} 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement

This article says the PKK recently formed an alliance with other leftist groups called the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement. Anyone else think that should have its own article? Turkish Wikipedia has one. Charles Essie (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

usa and pkk .

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

pkk are not terorist ,people come back to realty here :

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

Deletion nomination of related article

Since this page appears to be active, I wanted to let the editors here know that Effects of the Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict has been nominated for deletion as a POV-fork of this article. Interested editors may wish to comment in the article's deletion discussion.

Can someone include the terrorism in the activities section

I bundled some references: http://www.egm.gov.tr/EN/Pages/pkk_major_attacks.aspx http://www.terrorism.com/2014/04/23/various-attacks-kill-34/ http://www.terrorism.com/2014/04/23/pkk-attacks-bus/ http://www.terrorism.com/2014/04/23/pkk-kills-7-civilians/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/26/white-house-says-turkey-as-right-to-defend-itself-after-kurdish-attacks/

also this is an article about child marriages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.145.33 (talk • contribs)

PKK is not listed as a terrorist organization by United Nations.

Stop deleting it continuesly. Here is the list of terrorist organization that UN has made.

References

Drug Trafficking Section

The second paragraph of this section is a grammatical mess. I don't know enough about the subject to re write. Also needs reference. (Bjhodge8 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC))

New article

I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Its a terrorist organization.

PKK is clearly terroist organization since it has done terrorist attacks like killing civilians and suicade bombings. Its not a "party" but terrorist organization. So it need to be edited for this. Yabgu Turk (talk)

The article reflects ideological neutrality, Yabgu Turk over a contraversial subject. As editors should too: see our notes on 'words to avoid'. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

the PKK also advocates for Secularism. TheGazette94 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

Would like to link in the first line the 'left-wing' to the left wing politics area:

The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê) is a left-wing organization based in Turkey

should be

The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê) is a left-wing organization based in Turkey Xorg101 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kurdistan Workers' Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223122439/http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=10174 to http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=10174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230045/http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=5&ArsivAnaID=34813 to http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=5&ArsivAnaID=34813
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160929163726/http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Declaration_of_Democratic_Confederalism_in_Kurdistan to http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Declaration_of_Democratic_Confederalism_in_Kurdistan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016083217/http://www.luc.edu/faculty/gtezcur/files/TezcurInsightTurkey.pdf to http://www.luc.edu/faculty/gtezcur/files/TezcurInsightTurkey.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215104313/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/12535.htm to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/12535.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Ffr.apa.az%2Fnews.php%3Fid%3D1873&title=APA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tagblatt.ch/index.php?artikelxml=jsp&artikel_id=1245738&ressort=tagblattheute%2Fschlagzeilen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph

A review of the first paragraph reveals major issues:

• This is one of the sources used and that's clearly WP:SYNTH. The source doesn't talk about "equal rights", it instead labels the PKK as "separatist". It does not link decades-long repression to PKK activity.
• I have had the chance to access The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview, edited by Kreyenbroek. The page cited talks about the suppression of Kurmanji in Turkey. The PKK is not even mentioned in the page. Clear synthesis of material to support a thesis.
• Now, I do not have physical or online access to Tahiri's book, The Structure of Kurdish Society and the Struggle for a Kurdish State. In the snippets of p. 232 that I could reach, the author makes no decisive statement that would support the idea that the PKK exists for promoting equal rights. To the contrary: the Tahiri writes, "The PKK demanded an independent Kurdish state." For more scrutiny I looked at citations of this work, and was fortunate enough to find a source that happened to cite the exact page that we are interested in. Here it is. Citation 5 is to page 232 of Tahiri's book and is used to support the statement "...itself as a defender of Kurdish people's rights and claims it fights for an autonomous Kurdistan and greater cultural and political rights for the Kurds within Turkey." This shows beyond dispute that the actual source we use at the moment only presents this as the PKK's self-description and not as objective fact. As such, we currently describe the PKK's goal through the group's own lens, eschewing the scholarship on this issue and adopting this position as if it were neutral.
• Indeed, following the evaluation of such claims, the source I have cited concludes that the PKK in the 1980s aimed at creating an independent Kurdish state, citing their belief in neglect by the Turkish state, as exemplified by the Turkish government not using Kurdish at schools, as the reason.
• Not mentioning "independence" when talking about the PKK's goals is ignoring the elephant in the room. Especially so when the book by Marcus, one of the most thorough, neutral and meticulously written works on the topic (see review), is called Blood and Belief: The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence.
• It is also absolutely necessary to make it clear that the PKK's demands are not for independence today, but were originally based on independence based on a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint.
• For this reason, I am compiling a host of academic sources and will do a rewrite of that paragraph, removing the original synthesis in the process (but retaining the reference to human rights). --GGT (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Made a point of using a brilliant piece of literature, published in 2016, which I think reflects where the current neutral academic opinion stands. More such sources can be provided without much difficulty. --GGT (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the lead but i think this addition should be moved to an appropriate section (e.g. "Ideology" section) within the article per WP:LEAD: 1)they are opinions/interpretations rather than factual statements 2)not discussed in the body of the article. --162.244.239.227 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. Moving to the "ideology" section per WP:MOSLEAD. --GGT (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note though - I do believe that these interpretations are highly relevant for the lead, as what we need to ideally write such an article is an academic filter through which we can report such shifts. This preserves neutrality and allows the reader to make up their own mind about the issue at hand, whilst providing them with an overview of the major opinions in academia. The fact that some scholars believe that this shift represents a true shift in goals whereas some believe that it is only a change of means to achieve an ultimate goal is very important overall for a reader trying to make sense of the PKK. Anyway, your second point was completely valid though. --GGT (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent changes. To say that the PKK's only goal is to establish "autonomy" is grossly misleading, especially when there's no context given. Few minorities in the world want independence from their respective countries, and those who do are usually oppressed or suffer from an abusive government. In this case, we have both. And that's not my personal opinion, but the opinion of many human rights groups out there. With that said, there's dozens of reliable sources that show the PKK's insistence on a more democratic Turkey that safeguards the rights of Kurdish people. I added a few of those sources to the article, but can provide more if need be. Also, there needs to be an expansion on the oppression part both in the body and the lead. This will provide some balance to the article. Such militant groups don't just form for no apparent reason. There's usually a strong rationale behind them and that needs to be highlighted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Activities section ?

The text first reads as that the PKK did not target civilians, then concludes that they decided to not target civilians any longer.

The text currently has it that "In the first phase (1978–1984), the PKK […] attacked the machinery of government […] PKK tactics were based on ambush, sabotage, riots, protests, and demonstrations against the Turkish government. […] During this time, the organization argued that its violent actions against the government forces were explained by […]"

Then, "In the second phase (1984–1999), […] attacks were made on the government's military and vital institutions […]. In addition to skirmishing with Turkish military and police forces and local village guards, the PKK has conducted bomb attacks on government and police installations. Kidnapping and assassination against government and military officials and Kurdish tribal leaders who were named as puppets of the state were performed as well. […] The vast majority of PKK's actions have taken place […] against the Turkish military[…]. The PKK has also attacked Turkish diplomatic and commercial facilities across Western Europe."

…and goes on with : "The group also abandoned its previous strategy of attacking Kurdish and Turkish civilians who were against them, focusing instead on government and military targets. In its campaign, the organization has been accused of carrying out atrocities against both Turkish and Kurdish civilians and its actions have been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch"

'needs fixin'. --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No citation for statement that the group is not a terror group in Egypt

Per the title of this section. Zakawer (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ekurd

Please post directly to the sources, not the portal. Also, where there are book sources available editors should prefer one or two high quality sources to eight sources which can't be easily identified from the given citations. Also, because PDFs have the potential to be malicious files please do not post pdf links to untrusted sources like portals. These should be given full citations to the source and they should be hosted on trusted databases like JSTOR or known and trusted agencies. This is incredibly rude - no editor should have to open pdfs from untrusted sources to verify claims. I have found book sources and am updating the sourcing for the infobox now, but please note that the point of citations is verification, so they SHOULD contain enough information to INDEPENDENTLY look up the source (not just follow the link to a portal). Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

For some reason I will not fathom to guess, someone thought it would be appropriate to use Infobox Political Party for this article. This has led to a number of ridiculous issues, like Wikipedia presenting an umbrella organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the government as a "national chapter" of a political party. I propose that we use the suitable infobox, Template:Infobox militant organization. This infobox is nearly identical but it does not introduce irrelevant fields like "national" (for example: Republican National Committee). Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

PKK's goal is autonomy in Turkey

Dear editor,
You are involving in disruptive editing, WP:NPOV and original research. The PKK's goal is autonomy for Kurds in Turkey. The list of sources:
ARTICLES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

BOOKS:
1.
2.

Official PKK demand (statement)
1.

There are 13 more sources already added to the article supporting the fact the PKK is demanding autonomy in Turkey. Also, the source you have used to support your claim is not reliable and independent. It's also outdated and absolutely not neutral as it calls the PKK a terrorist organization even though most countries don't consider the PKK as a terrorist organization. Some claims of the author are also hilarious and reaching the level of conspiracy theories: he claims PKK withdrew to make Turkey release Öcalan.. this is in conflict with almost 9 sources of this article. Ferakp (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

First off, stop adding dozens upon dozens of sources, especially in the lead (also see WP:WHYCITE). We get your WP:POINT. More importantly, the stuff about autonomy is already there in the first clause of the sentence (i.e. "initial aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state"). You can demand a democratic Turkey AND autonomy simultaneously. There's nothing wrong about that. I also made copyedits to further clarify that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You are involving in disruptive editing, and your edits are not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Original research. You have been now warned several times.

You can demand a democratic Turkey AND autonomy simultaneously. This is exactly the problem with your edit. All reliable sources clearly mention that the PKK's demand is autonomy but you keep deleting all sources, and replacing them with one biased unreliable source which is not even related to the topic. This is not how Wikipedia works. Plus, you can't just say there is nothing wrong about that, this article is read by thousands of people every month and I am pretty sure they would rather want to get reliable information instead of your personal choice. There is a big difference between demanding autonomy and democratic Turkey, and if you can't understand the difference, then you are likely trying to edit the wrong article.

The sources were restored. If you continue with this behavior, you will be reported.Ferakp (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope you do realize that I'm not disagreeing that the PKK seeks autonomy, however I do believe that such information is being repeated in the first sentence. The removal of sources is not because I don't agree with them, it is because you have added at least 10 sources. That's not recommended under Wikipedia's WP:MOS, or more specifically per WP:WHYCITE. I could also pull many sources that claim PKK favors a democratic Turkey. And I have added those sources, but you have deleted them. So since you don't seem to understand this, I will have to request administrator intervention. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, I just took inappropriate sources. You were the one who deleted. I also asked them to to give opinion but they haven't yet commented. Since you are willing to cooperate, does the newest edit look good? Do you agree with it?Ferakp (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the second book available in English? English is preferred for WP:V - no need to make more of a mess then necessary. All you really need is one solid secondary source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Misrepresented source in the Designation as a terrorist group section

The page says "EU officials dismissed the ruling" but the source article says;

> But an EU official said a new version list had been drawn up in December 2007, including the PKK again, which took into account the views of the court in similar cases in the past.

So there's no dismissal and they did replace the council decision 2002/460/EC that has been overruled by the court and it's now currently replaced by the decision 2017/1426.

Sources:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-turkey/eu-was-wrong-to-include-pkk-on-terror-list-idUKL0367279920080403

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002D0460

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1508688141143&uri=CELEX:32017D1426

NightWatch71 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HDP Election Result Map

The reference 'The HDP’s elections results, which are a proxy indicator of popular support for the PKK, show that the group has followers throughout the country.' is very subjective and cannot be proven. Therefore, HDP Election Result Map on PKK page, creates misperception about HDP, which HDP is linked with PKK. Therefore, this image should be deleted from PKK page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proletarii (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kurdistan Workers' Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629011049/http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID%3D6606%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID%3D6606%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207111722/https://www.beaconreader.com/frederike-geerdink/pkk-leader-cemil-bayik-we-havent-declared-war-yet to https://www.beaconreader.com/frederike-geerdink/pkk-leader-cemil-bayik-we-havent-declared-war-yet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107082810/http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370250 to http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370250
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303182354/http://www.radikal.com.tr/ek_haber.php?ek=r2&haberno=7097 to http://www.radikal.com.tr/ek_haber.php?ek=r2&haberno=7097
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610203020/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158166 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158166
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201214002/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-184721-ersoz-and-pkks-bayik-kept-in-touch.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-184721-ersoz-and-pkks-bayik-kept-in-touch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114072107/http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=620819 to http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=620819
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/contents/afp/2015/07/turkey-syria-attacks-army-iraq-kurds.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504162825/http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=29 to http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurdistan Workers' Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://en.firatajans.com/news/yja-star-guerrilla-laid-to-rest-in-kandil
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019153652/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-260285-tayyars-new-book-reveals-pkks-ties-with-turkish-intelligence.html to http://todayszaman.com/news-260285-tayyars-new-book-reveals-pkks-ties-with-turkish-intelligence.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurdistan Workers' Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314061916/http://www.anfenglish.com/news/peoples-united-revolutionary-movement-established-for-a-joint-struggle to http://www.anfenglish.com/news/peoples-united-revolutionary-movement-established-for-a-joint-struggle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How was my edit "disruptive"

I arranged a table for nations listing the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a terrorist organization how was it disruptive, I felt it made it easier to read and see which nations list the group as a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Isn't the introduction a bit one-sided, because it mentions only Turkish human rights abuses against the Kurds and doesn't mention any human rights abuses committed by the PKK? Chaptagai (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• YDG-H Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word "Lure" in the Recruitment section.

Under the recruitment section of the page, one part really stood out has usually really heavily loaded language meant to demonize the PKK. "...they were lured into the organization based on this claim...". "Lure" is especially egregious. These women were not lured into anything, they willing decided because of a shared ideology. I wouldn't use "lured" when talking about someone joining the US Army, and this is really not that different. I'd edit it my self but obviously its locked, so, here I am, asking someone with editing permission to at least consider changing this case of really loaded language. Thanks to whoever does it!

LStanton (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed it. I would also reconsider to cite an other source since the source is a Turkish university. There are more neutral sources to cite the theme gender equality within the PKK than Turkish universities. --Lean Anael (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Kurdistan Workers' Party 1995.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

This change request is in regards to a suggested "expand acronym" link on the page. In the "Alleged links with Turkish intelligence" section of the page, change "and that his 1979 escape to Syria was aided by elements in MIT[expand acronym].[89]" to "and that his 1979 escape to Syria was aided by elements in Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, the Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MIT).[89]" where the words "Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı" are a link to that organization's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Organization_(Turkey)) Smaganazook (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of HPŞ.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin

I knew a pretty good bit about the PKK, and then came to this page to find out more. But there's no reference to Murray Bookchin and his ecological anarchism that I know has guided the group for a number of years. There were references to something called democratic confederalism, but with no context. I consider the entire article useless and invalid because of its failure to address the philosophy that has been dominant within the group for at least 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRaphael314 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Confederalism is the philosophy of Abdullah Öcalan, one of the founders of the PKK. It's heavily inspired by Murray Bookchin, but that doesn't mean that the philosophy of the PKK is the philosophy of Murray Bookchin. Jbkjbk2310 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tatvan Massacre

Hi there, why does the Tatvan massacre redirect to this page? I have not seen the word Tatvan in the page...any idea? Best, Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bahar source

Dear User:SharabSalam, I have held a similar discussion before, see here. The Bahar source you reintroduced doesn't mention that Kurds, Kurdistan and Kurdish are forbidden on page 63. Just scroll until the page. The part you reintroduced also said "verification failed" between brackets! right behind the phrase. Anyway you reintroduced it again. I'll replace the Bahar source with a correct source. Best, Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Unreleated with the article and also subjective "Fascist AKP Goverment" part In the first paragraph

I think the "fascist akp government" part is unnecessary and also not related with this article. That should be removed. What do you think? Ermancetin (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a quote from the PKK — how is it unrelated? El_C 21:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This quote is also subjective. Is there any resource referering "fascist akp goverment"? Ermancetin (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is referenced with this source. It is the view of the PKK — again, how is it unrelated and what does it being potentially subjective have to do with anything? Subjective to what? El_C 21:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Article is not a page about subjective "views". Wiki's written language should be objective, which does not change from one "view" to another. Though PKK is an armed (Defined as "A terrorist organisation" is a "view" from Turkish people but we dont write it is a terrorist organisation in wikipedia) againts Turkish state but not against a specific government. IMO Wikipedia should stay clean and neutral from subjective notions. Ermancetin (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is not stated in wikivoice. It is quoted. I still don't understand your objection. The PKK's view of the Turkish government is absolutely paramount and needs to be represented with historical accuracy. El_C 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

And what do you call broadly designated as a terrorist group? I think the lead is quite neutral in introducing opposing views according the best available sources. El_C 22:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your source specifies this as the view/goal of Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement (HBDH), not PKK in particular. Secondly, WP:WIKIVOICE states "prefer nonjudgmental language", so "fascist" should be dropped as tere is clear editorializing by leaving out the more significant part: "Movement aims to attain democracy and free future for peoples against imperialism, capitalism, chauvinism, fascism and racism". Thirdly, and most importantly, what the hell is even HBDH? It's nowhere near that important or relevant to be 3rd sentence in the article. The HBDH article pageviews are very low and declining. Mentions in national and international media is close to zero. Mentions in social media is neglectably small compared to PKK mentions. Thus it is punching way above it's weight per WP:BALASP.--Randam (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

A user has recently deleten all sources for PKK numbers that aren't from Turkish media. Given the extent of censorship in Turkey, are we to rely solely on these sources? Konli17 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

which numbers I have not removed anything.Shadow4dark (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

yes I see you have added the number 500. I don't know how much we should weigh this info. The Turkish authorities arrest many more Kurds on PKK related terrorism charges than only 500. I wouldn't add it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

yes and the older sources is from turkey also?Shadow4dark (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, Re: "The Turkish authorities arrest many more Kurds on PKK related terrorism charges", what is your evidence for this biased view? This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. 212.253.99.185 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Countries that doesn't list PKK as terrorist

I do not see the point in stating that countries such as India, China, Brazil, India, Egypt, Switzerland do not express a value judgment on the PKK. Switzerland has no list of organizations at all. And countries like China only have local groups on their terrorist lists, or groups that directly threaten such a country. For example, why would Brazil care? It's like saying, Leonardo DiCaprio won the Oscar award, but he did not won movie award x, award y and award z. We don't write the awards someone didn't win, unless there is a certain notability. Therefore I will adjust this article accordingly −Randam (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Proving a negative does seem a bit odd. El_C 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we could just include the ones that made headlines. But where Turkey asked for a designation but was turned down like in Russia and Switzerland or by the Belgian or the EU judges I think is worth a phrase.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed Brazil and others from the number of countries that refuse to designate the PKK as terror organization for now. If someone opposes it, we can carry on the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is undisputed that the EU, Britain, US, Japan, Australia, etc. consider PKK a terrorist organisation and that it has committed terrorist massacres against civilians. That is undisputed. To then state that X and Y do not consider it a terrorist organisation seems an attempt to defend and legitimize terrorism against civilians. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• HEP-logo.png (discussion)
• Halkın Demokrasi Partisi (HADEP).png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the opening paragraph is NOT an intro for the rest of the lead. It has a seperate function than the rest of the lead. It sets the boundaries of the topic as it features the defining elements. You can't pretend that PKK isn't defined by being designated as a terrorist group by a crushing majority of the industrialized world and others, among who Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, New Zealand, Austria, Spain, Syria, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. --Randam (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Randam, your description is incorrect. As MOS:OPEN explains: “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” In this case, the (non-neutral) issue of their terrorist designation (which requires specifics) already has a place in the lead in the 4th paragraph, where it is discussed in its wider context, per WP:NPOV. Also, I am not sure what you mean by “crushing majority of the industrialized world”, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all 190+ nations (industrialized or not). So using the way that 15 nations (mostly NATO or regional allies of Turkey) classify the PKK as the primary means of identification, when 160+? nations do not list them, is a clear case of WP:Undue and displays the sort of systemic bias (see --> WP:WORLDVIEW) that Wikipedia is trying to avoid. Moreover, the reason why the policy of MOS:TERRORIST exists is because such a value-laden term is often a matter of perspective; it’s the same reason we also don’t call groups “freedom fighters”. However, editors often circumvent this through attribution by saying that certain countries consider a particular group to be terrorists and making it very prominent in the lead. But then in that same vein, the context of the other side should be included if it is also in the reliable sources. In this case, a high number of WP:RS discuss the disputes around the PKK’s listing, including many prominent organizations, academics, and figures who have called for it to be reconsidered. This is why the mention of the listing belongs at the end of the lead, where it can be included alongside the countervailing viewpoint.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Redthoreau

@MOS:TERRORIST. This MOS is about addressing an organization as a cult, racist, terrorist et cetera. I'm not doing that. I'm only stating that countries has put PKK in their terrorism list.

@WP:NPOV. Per NPOV criteria, stating that countries has put PKK in their terrorism list is NOT an opinion. It's also NOT a contested fact.

@WP:WORLDVIEW. This is an essay, not policy. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter as I'm not stating a POV, but a neutral fact.

@WP:Undue. By saying "160 nations", you seemingly have no idea how designation of terrorism works. There are only a handfull of countries that designate organizations as terrorist. These are, for lack of better words, the industrialized world and some not fully industrialized countries. And there are cases like China that only have local groups on their terrorist lists, or groups that directly threaten such a country. For example, why would Ecuador care? PKK's designation on the other hand, even exceeds local boundaries, which is actually a rare and notable thing. It's a clear fallacy to say countries like Micronesia, Cape Verde and Liberia don't see PKK as a terrorist organization, when they don't even have such designation protocols. You're doing WP:FALSEBALANCE by thinking that such countries have the same weight as the designation of the "industrialized" countries. Plus, your creating a fake counterbalance by assuming it's 30 vs 160, when in reality it's more like 30 vs ~1 (Russia, that actively doesn't recognize).

@MOS:OPEN. I agree with you that terrorist designation by countries is always a non-neutral process. It's literally "picking a side". But stating which countries do this is not POV. I also disagree that we're being "too specific". Per MOS:OPEN, something about the terrorism aspect must be mentioned. Perhaphs we can reach middle ground by instead adding the sentence: "The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by many countries including Turkey, the United States, as well as the European Union, but is notably refused to be designated as such by Russia." --Randam (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The terror classification of the PKK was not done according to EU law, the EU court of justice has ruled twice in two different decades. I've moved this now also to the lead, the info was before included in the section "designation as a terrorist group...". As to me, NPOV would be that both the political decision as well as the juridical rulings would be mentioned side by side.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a technicality like "procedural mistake" is relevant to this discussion, but it's also in my interpretation not lead worthy because... well... it's a technicality issue... from the past... which has no consequence and which is resolved as PKK today (2021) is still in the terrorist list. But see my reply below to understand why the political aspect outweighs everything. --Randam (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Randam, at the expense of getting philosophical, not all facts are neutral, which is why the policy of WP:UNDUE is arguably the most important to Wikipedia (and difficult to discern). The reason being that it requires a wide familiarity with the subject matter sources, to judge the overall weight of “facts” and how relevant they are for inclusion and to what prominence. To the issue of terrorist designations, I can assure I am very familiar with exactly how they work. Such lists are political tools that these “industrialized” nations can use as a bargaining chip to engender weapons sales, sweeten trade deals, or discredit the armed struggles of groups directly resisting them or their allies. These designations are also arbitrarily removed on certain groups when they can be strategically useful against a foe or placed on groups as a tit-for-tat policy of “if you list our proxy, we will list yours”. A delisting can even be purchased by paying enough lobbyists. Thus, these lists have almost nothing to do with whether a group carries out actual “terrorism” (a neologism without a concrete definition), and in many of the listings the group has never attacked a person from that nation.

For example, in the case of the PKK, they have never attacked or killed a single US soldier, British soldier, Australian soldier, Japanese soldier etc. Nor do they even view them as an enemy. In the specific case of the US, the PKK was listed in 1997, as part of the largest weapons sales ever to Turkey. In fact, more US weapons were sold to Turkey in 1997, than the entire Cold-War period up to that point. Now if a person reading about the PKK for the first time is immediately met only with how the US lists them as terrorists, they might have the false impression that the PKK has carried out attacks on the US, which they have not. Or that they want to attack them. When in fact, the PKK leader Murat Karayilan told the Jerusalem Post in a November 2020 interview that the PKK had no enmity towards the US, has never targeted them, and is hoping they can play a mediating role between them and Turkey --> Full Interview. This is why issues like this need to be described in their full context, the definition of WP:NPOV. Having a complicated and disputed issue like their listing in the opening lines does not do that. Which is why the 4th paragraph of the lead has been set aside to give the issue its due weight. No “facts” are being omitted. But a fact without context is far from “neutral”.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Redthoreau. I was hoping you would notice that I'm talking only about countries instead of academics or ngo's. Because they have vastly different weights. It's a false counterbalance by putting these things on the same scale when it shouldn't be in the first place. (WP:FALSEBALANCE) Because when an academic states that PKK is not an terrorist organization, it's just an 'opinion'. When a country states that PKK is a terrorist organization, it means your bank accounts get frozen. It means you can't freely use airports anymore. It means when a police officer stops you over for a broken tail light, after looking in his computer he will detain you for terrorism. It means that other organizations are warned not to do business with you. It means you're a legal target for the military forces of these countries and many other character defining consequences. See, this is what it means to be PKK. This is what defines the PKK. And as mentioned before, these countries are not some random lightweight countries. Again, the issue is not about whether it's "fair" or "neutral" that countries designate PKK as terrorist. It's about stating that PKK is designated as a terrorist by these countries, which is stating a neutral fact. I have not received a direct answer to my "middle ground" proposal, but if you refuse that proposal in your next reply, I see no other option than invoke the dispute resolution policy for outside help. --Randam (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But if the juridical and the political opinion differ, wouldn't it be NPOV to present these informations alongside? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, I repeat myself, It's not an POV issue due to the "weight" those two "opinions" have. And I really don't understand what you're trying to say. You're talking like PKK is gone from the EU terror list by EU judges, while in reality, the issue you're refering to is mere a technicality issue! A procedural mistake! From years ago! Which by the way is resolved, as we speak in 2021, PKK is in the terrorist list. --Randam (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Randam, to clarify, all of my preceding comments regarding the disingenuous motivations for listing are in reference to countries. As for what it legally means when listed if you’re a member, your description is correct. But it is debatable to what degree this “defines the PKK” (hence the dispute on lead prominence). For example, Encyclopedia Britannica’s --> PKK entry doesn’t mention the word “terrorism” until their 4th paragraph, and they don't mention their foreign designations at all. To help establish where we are, I am not arguing that it should be left out of the article, nor am I arguing that it should be left out of the lead. Our disagreement is on where in the lead it should be stated. I feel the 4th paragraph is the appropriate place because that entire paragraph is already related to the terrorist designation in its wider context to fulfill WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, most article leads have 4 paragraphs (P), with a rough breakdown of (P1 quick basic defining of the topic, P2 history of the topic, P3 current info on the topic, and P4 legacy or controversies of the topic). The current lead sort of does this right now, though it can obviously still be improved.

As for your “middle ground” proposal, the sentence is not that different from what is there currently. Right now it reads: “The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, EU, Japan and Australia.” While you would like it to read: “The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by many countries including Turkey, the United States, as well as the European Union, but is notably refused to be designated as such by Russia.”

The only problems with your sentence is that “many” is a potential MOS:WEASEL word as its inexact, plus 5x more countries do not designate them. This goes back to my earlier point on facts. In theory, you could list all 150 nations that do not list the PKK and that would be a “fact”, but we would never do that. Also, I am not sure how it is “notable” that only Russia does not list them when so many do not (why not mention China & India too then at 30% of the global population); as the false implication seems to be that Russia doesn’t because they directly arm and employ them. As for any dispute resolution, you have not displayed that you have any WP:Consensus for your desired wording. Right now, your objection amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on the placement in the 4th paragraph of the lead instead of the 1st. Moreover, Paradise Chronicle's reply above implies that they support inclusion in the 4th paragraph as I do (please clarify PC if not).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has a different structure and policy, while Wikipedia has it's own. And no, our disagreement is not where, it's whether being regarded and treated as terrorist group by the world, is part of PKK's "defining of the topic".

First, you say the sentence is too specific. Then you say you have a problem with the replacement word "many". While at the same time, you accept a similar sentence in the 4th paragraph! And then I'm accused of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? While I literally answered point-by-point to your replies with nothing but Wiki guidelines and policy quotes. Now you complain about MOS:WEASEL word, while ignoring the weasel word in "the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial; as many organizations, people, and NGOs...". You're not making a convincing case here. That said, read the 2nd paragraph of MOS:WEASEL to see there is no problem with my sentence. But have it your way. Let's replace it "many" with "countries like".

Again, I answered your "China and India" argument before. It's like saying, Leonardo DiCaprio won the Oscar award, but he did not won movie award x, award y and award z. We don't write the awards someone didn't win, unless there is a certain notability. Russia on the other hand, as given with source in the body of the article has actively refused to designate PKK as a terrorist group. That said, I see no fruitfull base for a consensus anymore after the insisting WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT accusations and weak objections, thus I will soon invoke the dispute resolution policy for outside help. --Randam (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Where the terror classification is mentioned in the lead we can discuss, but since the PKK won cases against the terror classification it should be mentioned jointly beside the terror classification. That is NPOV.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Randam, Britannica was used as an example to refute that the terror designation is a “defining” feature, worthy of the first paragraph. Also, they are not “regarded” by the “world” if 80% of the world’s nations do not classify them as such. The world is larger than a handful of Western nations, and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. As for “many”, per MOS:OPEN, non-specificity is only requested for the 1st paragraph, not the 4th. As for weasel, I did not form that sentence or add that use of “many”, so it should not be seen as something I endorse. The entire article has many flaws that still need to be corrected. If I fix one thing, that does not mean I endorse what remains.

Lastly, rather than Oscar hypotheticals, while it isn’t directly relevant how other article’s address this similar issue, it can be worth a look. For instance, the lead of the --> Hamas article does use the 1st paragraph, but also states: “It is not considered a terrorist organization by Brazil, China, Egypt, Iran, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Syria and Turkey.” Now instead of going through all the back and forth of the debate around the PKK’s designation in the 1st paragraph (which would be lengthy) and listing the dozens of nations who do not list them, this lead addresses the matter in the 4th paragraph. As for any “fruitful base for a consensus”, that’s because no other editors have chimed in to agree with your viewpoint. Dispute resolution doesn’t mean: ‘Help, nobody is agreeing with me’.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Designation as a terror organization

The UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. This is in the official documents of the UN. There are listed all designated Terror organizations by the UN and the PKK is not present there. I introduced sources to this in the past, but it got reverted. Also it is not correct to mention that 28 European Countries list them as a terror organization and link it with the European Union. If the EU labels the PKK a terror org, then the EU labels them a terror org. Belgian court has ruled that the PKK is not a terror org.. Also a court In Luxembourg the European Court also said that the listing as a terror organization was illegal at least in the years from 2014-2017.. So yes the PKK is listed in the EU Terror list, this is a fact. But not in 28 European countries.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is this singularly relevant? UN's list does not include many terrorist organizations (such as Boko Haram) but as long as there is a general consensus in the international community, the first line always includes "terrorist organization". Bad faith? 94.54.53.185 (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the designated UN terror organization list. Read who are the terror organizations here, and here to the reading list about the Terror organizations. There does not figure the PKK. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, we dont use primary sources. We have a reliable secondary source that says the UN has designated this terror group as a terrorist group. I am not going to search all of these annoying, hard-to-reach UN documents to verify what a reliable secondary source said.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you to read the WP:OR again. It says the source must concern the topic. And well, a UN source about the UN designated terrorist organizations is on the topic if the UN designates the PKK as a terrorist organization. I don't think there is a better one.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted, good work. Konli17 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources that says the UN has designated the PKK as a terrorist organisation. Period. 212.253.99.185 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There is more sources that the UN does not designate the PKK a terror organization. Here one from 2010 and here (see entry number 71 about Kongra Gel and PKK EU lists but the UN not) an updated one of all the sanctioned entities and individuals by the UN security council from 12 June 2020. Not a single entry of the PKK. Source from the UN itself.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Killing of teachers

I note that a user has mass reverted my recent edits, which included the addition of a section about the PKK's targeting of teachers into the article and the introduction of a sentence about this to the lead section. See this. These additions were supported by top-notch sources published in peer-reviewed international academic journals (not one, but three such articles), as well as an impartial report by the Human Rights Watch. Calling the systematic killing of teachers and the use of child soldiers "undue nonsense" is blatant whitewashing and has no place on Wikipedia. --GGT (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT Bring it here don't revert and don't add undue nonsense. Des Vallee (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT Tone down the personal attacks for starters, and moreover for someone who accuses me of "whitewashing" you replaced "massacred and killed" to "destroyed," despite this being a complete nonsense of the original sources, removed an immense amount of images for seemingly no reason and reworded sections on atrocities. Des Vallee (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's start with the section that you removed, then we can talk about the other points. Every single word in that section that you removed can be verified word by word by those academic sources. I invite you to support your claim by going through them and pointing out any inconsistencies that you find. I would like you to be specific and raise specific issues in the section you removed in a constructive manner, and I attach it here for convenience. You will find none. I know that this a contentious topic, I have worked with such topics before, and I am aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, which I have provided. I have very seldom seen such a brazen removal of such impeccably sourced material, and to be frank, your arguments sound like nothing more than a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The PKK has systematically carried out killings of school teachers and burned school buildings. This led to the deaths of 90 school teachers in southeastern Turkey between 1984 and 1995 according to an Amnesty International report. These killings were particularly concentrated in the Diyarbakır Province and Tunceli Province between 1993 and 1995, but took place in other provinces at other times as well. The justification for such killings was that the teachers had been collaborating with the state security forces. Often the only non-locals in their communities besides the security forces, teachers had to travel to their assigned schools in the company of security forces. In a particular instance on 14 April 1990, PKK militants raided a teachers' residence in the vilage of Bükardı in Elazığ Province, forcing teachers and their spouses outside and opening fire with automatic weapons, killing five people. By the end of 1993, 700 schools were closed in Diyarbakır Province alone due to PKK attacks on teachers and school buildings. Such attacks continued in the 2010s. According to a report by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack in 2018, PKK activities included abduction of teachers, planting and detonating bombs in schoolyards and nurseries, launching Molotov cocktails at schools, setting fires to schools and dormitories. The PKK confirmed in 2017 that it had abducted and killed a schoolteacher in a village in Tunceli Province.

--GGT (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT Keep your arguments without posting walls of texts. I disagree with you and I am not convinced such sections are due, disregarding the fact you completely overlooked you creating a synthesis by removing "killed" and added more changing text towards to distort it's original meaning.

Moreover attempting to poison the well by entitling this section "Whitewashing" is not only disrespectful it's also doesn't help anyone on your side, the section which you are now accusing me of "whitewashing" is written by me, show respect to editors and assume good faith it's the most basic principle of Wikipedia, personally I would rename your the title you gave this section. Now that is settled, your section has an extreme amount of issues the one non the less being undue, and has previously had exhausted AFD's, discussion and open cases to determine that attempting to cram in paragraphs of Turkish POV text shouldn't be added. Personally I would Drop the stick on this one. Des Vallee (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What are the "extreme amount of issues" in this section? Please elaborate. --GGT (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT You change the initial statement of bombing adding an immense amount of undue weight which previously was added and just as well reverted. It has been removed before and will remain as such.

You change "burned down" and "massacred" when in reference to Turkish forces to "destroyed or evacuated" despite the sources stating there was massacring, a complete synthesis that removes the statement from it's initial meaning spouting pro-Turkish propaganda that Turkey evacuated villages against the PKK despite the sources stating killed.

Percentage of the popular vote won by the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) in the 2015 Turkish general election. "The HDP's elections results, which are a proxy indicator of popular support for the PKK, show that the group has followers throughout the country."

You strangely remove nearly all images of the PKK, like images of Peshmerga and PKK fighters fighting together

You add undue sections of a single child soldier, something which isn't allowed. Any organizations can find a cherry picked story and try to jam it into an article.Imagine if someone took a personal story and tried to jam it into the TAF.

This is just a fraction of what is wrong with your edit. Please ping me when you respond, not watching this page. Des Vallee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Des Vallee, the lead issue is quite distinct, you reverted en masse a number of my edits. Let's talk about that in a separate section below. I also did not remove any images so my current reaction is more of a bewildered "what the heck". I am more concerned about your removal of the section I quoted above, about the killing of teachers, which you still have not justified. What's wrong with that paragraph? Why do you insist on the article not having any mention of the killing of teachers, when this is supported by peer-reviewed, impartial publications? --GGT (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT I am going to sleep, we can discuss this later in the mean time let the discussion rest, let other users chime in to try to create a balanced consensus. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I currently don't have very much time to interact with this article, but at least the targets section is blatant POV pushing. Let's go through this sentence for example:

According to a report by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack in 2018, PKK activities included abduction of teachers, planting of and detonating bombs in schoolyards and nurseries, launching Molotov cocktails at schools, setting fires to schools and dormitories. The PKK confirmed in 2017 that it has abducted and killed a schoolteacher in a village in Tunceli Province.

Now let's look at the source:

The PKK reportedly set fire to eight schools and a dormitory in İdil district, Şırnak province, on January 14, 2016.[2359]

On January 19, 2016, the PKK reportedly launched Molotov cocktails at two secondary schools in Van province.[2362]

On June 19, 2016, the PKK reportedly detonated an IED at a nursery school in Van province, destroying most of it.[2363]

Here are the sources citations:

"More than 100 schools damaged by PKK, education minister says," Daily Sabah, June 27, 2016

Cemal Asan and Mesut Varol, "PKK terrorist attack damages nursery in eastern Turkey," Anadolu Agency, June 20, 2016.

Not only is the attribution here false, but a secondary source is used to disguise state-run and government-affiliated propaganda outlets who offer zero reliability regarding the subject. Soapwort (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comment @Soapwort:. The secondary source was not used to "disguise" propaganda outlets, the secondary source was used in its own right, as I presumed that this NGO has their own way of vetting their sources. It is fair to say that they might be over-relying on government accounts for their reporting, and it was this sort of critique that I was hoping one might be able to produce, if they were to remove the paragraph. How about this iteration of the sentence:

According to a report by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, the PKK confirmed in 2017 that it had abducted and killed a schoolteacher in a village in Tunceli Province.

Surely this can't be problematic? Furthermore, what about the remainder of the paragraph? What's "blatant POV pushing" about those? There are sources published by the PKK (happy to provide a translation) confirming violence against teachers in the 1980s and 1990s, and this is well-established in literature (happy to supply more academic sources). That this wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all is not acceptable.

Personally I think finding/using original sources would be preferable here. The GCPEA is really only summarizing reports over the period rather than doing its own fact checking or investigation. Moreover their citations for this event are AA and Daily Sabah as well. I'm open to including a due amount of information about the killing of teachers if it's a notable aspect about the organization, but specific events are more suited to the conflict articles. Soapwort (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

--GGT (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and your contribution to the article about teachers, Soapwort. OK, let's agree that there will be no mention of specific events in this article. May I ask why you think original sources are preferable? Surely our policies dictate that secondary sources should be used where these are available, and that doesn't get more solid than peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. Have you had a chance to look at the ones I supplied above? I am happy to send over PDFs if access is an issue. I think what you added is a solid start, but a couple more sentences are warranted. I think it's essential to mention attacks on school buildings and the ensuing school closures (see sources above), include some of the numbers regarding these from the 90s that I gave above, and briefly discuss the PKK's motivations for these, as we have agreed upon with Paradise Chronicle below. This shouldn't be more than a short paragraph. If you agree I'm happy to draft one and discuss it here. More, e.g. specific incidents can be discussed in a dedicated article on the subject, perhaps. --GGT (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency is also banned in these topics on Wikipedia. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT if we already write about using Serxwebun as a source, then there is sure also information about why the teachers were killed. As far as I read, the teachers were mostly warned not to teach Kurdish people Turkish before they were killed. Also the village Guards were usually warned before they were killed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Paradise Chronicle, you can check the link or ask me to translate. That's not even the entire story, there's more, and I've given only one article above, there's lots of more accounts of the killings of teachers in Serxwebun. We can add quotes from Serxwebun to explain the PKK justification for these killings (it is a primary source that can be used to give the PKK point of view), and we can supplement that with secondary sources e.g. Masullo and Francis, Marcus, as I have partly done above. This is about whom the PKK targets, so why the PKK targets them is absolutely part of this discussion. --GGT (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I know there have been killings of teachers, it is a relevant subject to include in the article, I agree to that. And the presentation of them you suggest seems fair to me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Sentence in the lead

The lead currently reads "Turkey has burned down thousands of Kurdish villages and massacred Kurds in an attempt to root out PKK militants". I have looked at all of the sources for this statement and am unable to find the word "massacre" in any of them, let alone a clear statement that Turkey massacred Kurds to root out PKK militants. Can anyone provide us with a quote to verify this statement? Being unable to verify it, I had edited it such that it read "Turkey has destroyed or evacuated thousands of Kurdish villages in an attempt to root out PKK militants, resulting in civilian deaths and mass displacement, whilst also engaging in arbitrary arrests and torture." but Des Vallee reverted this, and accused me of Turkish nationalism, which I must absolutely suck at, given that I introduced the mention of mass displacement, arrests and torture there. --GGT (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

but Des Vallee reverted this, and accused me of Turkish nationalism, which I must absolutely suck at, given that I introduced the mention of mass displacement, arrests and torture there.

Not focusing on the content is not going to win any favor for your crusade on the article...

Regarding the word massacre, I think notable events frequently called "massacres" that fit this description include Lice and Kuşkonar. You're correct the current sources don't seem to mention these events or use the word massacre. Here are two pretty good sources about those events: [6], [7]; and one more "massacre" with almost unreadable typesetting. Soapwort (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts GGT, but I don't think anyone can get past the wall of pro-PKK editors that constantly patrol the page. Just take a look at the top contributors of the article, I already gave up. --Dijkstra (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious what exactly your problems with the page are. Soapwort (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you've asked, here is a summary of my problems with the page, and apologies in advance for the length:

• Although there is a lot of good academic publications cited in this article, it is still overly reliant on primary sources, such as news articles or opinion pieces. For instance, the entire section titled "Reported links with Turkish intelligence" is based upon news articles, which in this context constitute primary sources. This opinion piece is used to settle the debate about whether the support for the HDP is a proxy for support for the PKK - I do hope that the problem with that is self-evident. This is a well-studied conflict and there is ample scholarship that can and should be used preferably.
• This is a conflict where egregious stuff has been done by both sides. Now, this article is not about the conflict, it's about the PKK, so the focus would have to be on the PKK's actions, although of course the actions of the Turkish government/deep state have to be discussed to present a balanced account. Now, when it comes to the latter, the article seems quite comprehensive - there are four separate occasions where ECHR rulings against Turkey are discussed and multiple paragraphs, including one in the lead, discuss what is covered in the article on the Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. This is appropriate. There is also some mention of the crimes committed by the PKK - child soldiers, suicide bombings and massacres were all mentioned when I first read it. Important aspects, however, were missing, most notably the systematic attacks on teachers and educational facilities. Furthermore, the lead is deficient. It should absolutely mention child soldiers (the PKK was the biggest recruiter of child soldiers in Europe at one time!) and teachers for the PKK, and mass displacement and torture for the government of Turkey. And if we are mentioning massacres committed by the government of Turkey in the lead, we should be mentioning massacres by the PKK, which are already discussed in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. Pınarcık massacre). Shouldn't this last one go without saying?
• The article is inappropriately liberal with its phrasing and interpretation of the sources. For instance, the word massacre was nowhere to be found in the sources given. That would be settled if you add these sources to the appropriate place and also add mentions of these massacres into the article to comply with MOS:LEAD. The article also says that the government "burned down thousands of Kurdish villages". This is inappropriate vocabulary as "burned down" means that Turkish forces set fire to houses in each and every one of these villages. However, as detailed in the relevant article, what did happen was a forcible evacuation and destruction, for which various methods were employed. I changed this to "destroyed and evacuated", but this was reverted. Another example is the sentence "YJA-STAR was established in 2004 as the women's armed wing of the PKK, emphasizing the issue of women's liberation." How is this phrasing any different from outright saying that they are freedom fighters? Surely we have to clarify that this is the way the PKK sees it, rather than give it in Wikivoice? These are some instances, there is a need for tightening the phrasing throughout the page.

If you wish to call this a "crusade", so be it, I have spent years working on articles about Cyprus and have engaged in constructive dialogues with people who have called me far worse. I have no doubts that this will end up likewise, as I appreciate some of the edits you have made in the article. Now I do not claim to be infallible, and I sure as hell can make sloppy edits, so fierce critique of those, such as highlighting the flaws in the GCPEA report, is something I appreciate.

--GGT (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

GGT Your source is literally just a blog spot article, something which has never be used in an article. You are using a poorly constructed blog as a source to try to push wild accusations. Neither authors have any qualification, and the article has absolutely zero use in any reliable sources, authors, the article itself doesn't even have any citations! Blogs are not to be used as source anyone can create a blog, it's a particularly horrible, poorly written blog at that. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/09/22/the-renewed-turkey-pkk-conflict-has-shattered-the-illusion-that-kurds-can-participate-legitimately-in-turkeys-political-system/.

Des Vallee, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I am not using that blog, the blog is already cited in the article (no idea who added it, see ref 163) for a very contentious statement. I was criticising the fact that it is being used in the article. Happy to read that you agree. --GGT (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@GGT: I was actually responding to Dijkstra, but I think most of the problems you raised here are fair.

• The blog post you mentioned is a very poor source and should be removed. Ideally we can replace it with a proper metric/survey about the level of support the PKK has within Turkey or among Kurds instead of a "proxy indicator" like HDP votes.
• Indeed, the PKK has committed it's own massacres (like Pınarcık), and not all villages depopulated were "burned down". On the other hand, "destroyed and evacuated" is a very tame rendering of what happened, as a great number of villages were burned down, along with their residents (here is a story I remember from when I was first researching the conflict). To leave in "to root out PKK militants" in reference to the depopulation (instead of massacres) also ended up seeming as if most of these villages contained or harbored PKK members, rather than either refusing to become village guards or being suspected of supporting the PKK. How about "depopulated and burned down" (the same as in the previous reference) as an appropriate description? After all, the sentence is emphasizing the misdoings of Turkey and the PKK.
• Re: "crusade", my meaning was that some edits seemed heavy-handed against your perceived bias. For the YJA-STAR sentence as an example, I don't particularly see the issue here: "emphasizing the issue of women's liberation", i.e. the PKK/YJA-STAR is emphasizing it? I don't read that sentence as affirming that they are liberating women, but if you want to change it back to "with the stated aim", that's fine; my only issue was the scare quotes.

Either way, I appreciate the points you made and admire that you brought them here without edit warring. I will continue editing in the near future with these changes in mind and hopefully we can reach something we agree upon. Soapwort (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

There is a important lack of civillian attacks of Pkk. One of many being Başbağlar Massacare in Erzican Turkey 1993 where an entire village was killed including many children and women. 85.99.180.34 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of name in Kurmanci

In the section that shows the name in Kurmanci, it says it is spelled Partîya Karkerên Kurdistanê, however, almost every spelling I have ever seen of it in Kurdish is spelled Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan(ê), including that of the Kurdish Wikipedia page. While these are pronounced the exact same in Kurmanci regardless of spelling, î is rarely used next to y in Kurmanci spelling as i next to y makes the same sound. While this isn't the most major issue ever, I suggest you change this odd spelling as it is not the most common spelling of it by any means --Serok Ayris (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Drug trafficking

There are many sources that claim that the PKK is involved into drug trafficking, but I haven't found a report about a PKK member involved in Drug trafficking. Not a single one. Maybe we should adapt the section. Also, Anadolu is an unreliable source for controversial themes as per a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. Comments on how to make the section better are welcome.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't search for long, but if so many important institutions from all over the world claim the PKK is involved in drug trafficking, there should also be some PKK cartel/organization which has prisoners, just like the Sinaloa Cartel has, too. But what I found where only speculations, accusations, reports and claims about the organizations involvement in the drug trade. Not a single prisoner from the PKK so far.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I see there is some opposition of the inclusion of the term "alleged". Also the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that it is not the guerrilla itself which is involved in drug trafficking but rather some of the logistical group (who ever this is). Still, there is not mentioned a single member of the PKK, who is imprisoned for Drug trafficking. There is not a single name in any drug trafficking trial which can officially be traced back to the PKK hierarchy in the whole section and I guess also in any other drug related articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, I've found no reports of the PKK being involved in human trafficking (or even of the Turkey alleging this), as mentioned in the article. The only citation () listed that makes this claim relies on its own citation that strangely makes no mention of the PKK whatsoever (). Going to remove this for now. Soapwort (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Soapwort. I was the one who added that source. The citation they used mentions Kurds in human smuggling but indeed makes no mention of PKK.

However, I disagree with your removal of the sentence about drug trade, for which I used a report by UN as citation:

"On some part of the Balkan route, organized crime and insurgency overlap, such as elements of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who are reported to tax drug shipments crossing into Turkey from the Islamic Republic of Iran and, it is speculated, from Iraq. The PKK also reportedly collect taxes (or receive donations) from Kurdish heroin traffickers based in Europe. According to NATO intelligence analysts, the PKK pockets upwards of US$50 million to US$100 million annually from heroin trafficking alone. PKK involvement in the trade is further demonstrated by the 2008 arrest of several of its members in Europe on heroin trafficking charges."

— UN TOCTA report

--Dijkstra (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dijkstra. While we do have good evidence the PKK looks the other way towards and sometimes collects money from drug traffickers, it seems misleading to include in the lead that the PKK is "involved" in drug trafficking when there is no evidence of them directly producing/trading drugs, especially when Turkish state media frequently makes this unsubstantiated claim seeking to garner European/American opposition to the PKK. Moreover, Turkey has helped drug traffickers to a similar or greater extent during the conflict through it's connections to the Turkish mafia and Grey Wolves, as shown in the Susurluk scandal, so it would also seem unfair to cite criticism of only the PKK in this comparison. Soapwort (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I found some Turkish media reporting that PKK members or sympathizers being arrested for drug trafficking. I know and understand why Turkish media generally isn't a reliable source, but i will send them below because it could help with the situation.

- [8] (24 April 2020) 2 people who were monitored by the Gendarmerie for doing propaganda of PKK were caught in Esenyurt with a high amount of trafficked pills that is used to make Methamphetamine in their apartment.
- [9] (2 February 2010) 4 people were arrested in Diyarbakır by the Gendarmerie for selling trafficked drugs to the PKK.
- [10] (1 November 2007) 50 people were arrested in simultaneous house raids in İzmir, Mardin, Bursa and İstanbul for trafficking weapons and drugs for the PKK.Śαǿturα^💬 19:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I publish the United Nations' reports on the PKK's drug trade.This is not a claim, it is also reflected in the United Nations reports.

1- https://www.unodc.org/documents/lpo-brazil/Topics_drugs/WDR/2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf "Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) of income from the heroin trade to finance illegal armed activities in Turkey." 2- https://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_1997-03-19_1.pdf "Illicit manufacturing, processing and trafficking in eastern Turkey was reported to be supported by PKK" Fullstackdev (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, one United Nations report is from 1997, is produced on request by Turkey and only one! member state reports PKKs involvement, which is likely Turkey. The other one mentions PKK twice, once in the acronym section and once in its alleged Heroin activities. I'd prefer to see some well known PKK members in jail for drug trade, protecting drug plantations etc. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle Aliza Marcus, The source you have given is not an unbiased source and is not reliable. The article of this journalist, who is trying to exonerate PKK, will lead to the perception of propaganda on wikipedia.Also, the other source claiming that pkk has nothing to do with drugs is also broken. The first source I cited clearly states that the PKK is dealing in drugs. "Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) of income from the heroin

trade to finance illegal armed activities in Turkey."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstackdev (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC) 

Hi, the sub-section currently consists solely of solid documentation of drug trafficking by the organization from various reliable sources like Interpol, NCIS, US Department of Treasury, OFAC and EUROPOL and the title should reflect that. Only one of the sources contend that claim, so the "alleged" part is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. As it stands, there is a discrepancy between the body and the title of the sub-section that should be ironed out. DriedGrape (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Move history section to History article

I'd like to move|merge most of the by decade sorted history sections to History of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. We can keep a core section mentioning the main events. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

There's a group of editors who have frequently brought the PKK's terrorist designation to the first two sentences of the article. As they are aware that most people just seek short information, they bring the PKK's terrorist designation information to most visible part of the article. The article is not neutral if the second sentence is about it's terrorist designation but at the same time the article itself says however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial.

I am requesting deletion of which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey,[26] United States,[27] the EU[28] and other countries part from the header.

Requesting a change:
is a Kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement, which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey,[26] United States,[27] the EU[28] and other countries.[29][30] The PKK has historically operated
to
is a Kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement which has historically operated.... SkyEditor85 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

With whom? The state paid trolls? :) There is already article about these trolls and how they keep adding "terrorism" to every single sentence. Additionally, this was done before and it was rolled back by many users. SkyEditor85 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not solved. I am going to entirely delete that newly added terrorist designation part from the first phrase and then you are all welcome to talk about whether should it be brought back and repeated twice with four more rules it breaks. It's still duplicate and against NPOV. It was added without consensus. SkyEditor85 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen that it was reverted and we are trying to find a better wording. Your advice will be welcomed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Neutrality of the article

There's a group of editors that spend time making sure the first two sentences about the PKK is that it's a terrorist organization, and then they cause the article to be semi-protected so others can't roll back their changes. The article is not neutral and I ask other users to remove ..which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey,[26] United States,[27] the EU[28] and other countries. part. There's already same information below. SkyEditor85 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely disagree. First off, that second sentence in the lead isn't there because "a group of editors spend time making sure it's there", it's there because it's relevant and stable information. Removing the sentence would not in any way improve the article, on the contrary. The lead couldn't be more neutral since it only states that many countries and organizations recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization, in compliance with MOS:TERRORIST and WP:INTEXT. DriedGrape (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It's actually been there several times and deleted every single time. The information is already there below table, so why repeat it twice with additional misinformation? Also it should be some other countries not other countries as more than half of the planet doesn't recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization. Additionally, jumping to terrorist label with misinformation (and other countries part) is not in compliance with MOS:TERRORIST and neither with WP:INTEXT. As this article mentions there is clearly a pattern between edits and Google knowledge engine. If you google PKK, Google will show you exactly that sentence where it's mentioned the PKK is'a terrorist organization without even providing basic knowledge. It's what editors try to seek and it's clearly against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Not the first time... SkyEditor85 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate diff's to prove this lead is not stable. What do you mean "disinformation"? Do you not find the sources reliable? They're either official state websites or solid sources. On the other hand, you have tried to use The Daily Dot twice to claim a WP:FRINGE point. The point of the lead is to summarize the body. As you admitted, the information can and must be found below. Select relevant information on the body is to be shortened and included in the lead, not the other way around. The wording is fine, it doesn't even claim it is the majority of the world that recognize it as such. But I do agree that if it is just a few countries, it's better to list them all rather than the current slightly vague wording. If you were to actually read WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST, you'd see the current format is in compliance. It feels like this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT DriedGrape (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What sources? I just said that the information that it’s seen as a terrorist organization is already written in the same section (below). It’s clearly repetation to repeat it twice in the lead section for Google knowledge engine. Also no, you are definitely wrong, ”other countries” is not the same thing as ”some other countries”. It’s not WP:IDONTLIKEIT it’s clearly against NPOV and that’s why I asked third opinion. SkyEditor85 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Skyeditor for pointing it out and also to Driedgrape for taking part in the discussion. We must admit that it is mentioned twice! in the lead that it is a terrorist organization by... This is not even the case at the UN designated terrorist organizations I have checked. Let's calm down and discuss it reasonably, Wikipedia has a solution for quite a lot. After reading MOS:LEAD, I figure terrorist should be used in the lead, but after reading MOS:LEADNO not twice and after reading MOS:FIRST probably also not in the first phrase. Let's see with what you come up with, after reading those MOS shortcuts. Maybe you find other MOS shortcuts as well with which you can come up as arguments.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

At Hamas there are several countries cited which designate it as a terrorist organization, beside others that do not. Maybe this helps, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Oh here we go again, the ancient old Wikipedia discussion... yeah yeah it's wrong according to this and that but you know I still support that and I think we should discuss this and you should come up with arguments. Oh god.... even a small kid could read that the organization is not classified as a terrorist organization by more than half of the countries and the UN... and additionally its terrorist designation is even controversial in those countries that have added it to their terrorist list. Saying it's classified as a terrorist organization by X and Y and other countries is definitely against Wikipedia:Disinformation. This itself with duplicate issue is enough to roll it back to the previous version. Also what's even other countries? It's disambiguate. Assuming that Wikipedia is international unbiased encyclopedia, not the Turkish state encyclopedia, it would make no sense to emphasize the organization's controversial terrorist designation in the first phrase with misinformation. I keep good faith but it's hard to believe this conservation will ever end in consensus, as the user (DriedGrape) has been several times banned/blocked due to edit wars and WP:PUSH. You have similar history... Additionally, it was not shocking to read that DriedGrape would rather keep the first sentence and edit the second mention....to more Turkish state or nationalism like POV. I don't really have time to argue all day and all I can say that keeping that highlighted terrorist designation in the first phrase is totally nonsense if you think outside the box, and it's no surprising at all that it was deleted before. After spending a few hours reviewing these pro-Turkish accounts, it's obvious that even if we delete that terrorist designation part from the first phrase, per Wikipedia:Disinformation or even MOS:FIRST, another newly made account will appear again and put it back there...and because it's obvious that they know that most users don't have time to spend days and weeks in the talk page trying to neutralize back the article, they will keep repeating it over and over. That previous edit request I made is bringing the article back to the previous version which was reached as a result of hard work by many editors here. SkyEditor85 (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Accusing me of POV pushing and other nonsensical stuff is WP:PA. Seeing as though you have registered just yesterday -and ironically claim newly edited accounts are trying to POV push here- it may be better to familiarize yourself with WP:GUIDELINES and WP:PILLARS first. Also maybe WP:RS since you aren't providing reliable sources to justify your suggestions and in fact wanting well sourced content removed. Nor are you going one step outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT.DriedGrape (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC) I am not accusing you of POV pushing, I am saying that you have been practicing it very very long time with consequences like getting banned/blocked several times. Your user talk page tells a lot about you editing traditions. Oh and no, I am not POV pushing like you, I asked editors to comment that edit till you came up with nonsense arguments. Despite telling you that it's duplicate and also misinformation, you keep pushing your POV. And once again, when I prove your nonsense arguments, you keep jumping to sources... even though those sources are already added to the article and there's a list of countries classifying the PKK as a terrorist organization and the ones that are not classifying it as a terrorist organization. You still keep repeating same nonsense argument. I would have said read WP:Disinformation and WP:NPOV but looking at your editing history, you have been banned and blocked several times for breaking these rules. SkyEditor85 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "I am not accusing you of POV pushing [...] I am not POV pushing like you". You are trying to "gain third opinions", yet get mad when those don't conform your opinion, and even get mad toward Paradise who has been trying to be the most neutral and welcoming under this thread. Calling my arguments just "nonsense" over and over and attacking my person does not help anything and is simply a waste of time. Again, I highly urge you to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and how Wikipedia works. DriedGrape (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC) It’s definitely weird to have two frequently blocked/banned users supporting edit which literally breaks more than 4 rules. It’s even more weird when they keep ignoring these same rules and try to find something to keep the edit. I have no time to talk with users like you. SkyEditor85 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Paradise, I believe putting that further below would be doing the vital information injustice and the reader. The current lead works with MOS:OPEN, giving only the most notable examples of countries that recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization and not outright labeling it as such. The second mention further below in the lead is not merely a duplicate however, but it's used rather to allude on the controversies on its designation, the accusations of terror tactics of both parties, and that it's designation has recently become controversial. So maybe it would be better to just change the second mention to something like "While the PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, the EU, Japan, Australia, and other countries; the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial, as many analysts...". But I still think the former part we're discussing should be in at least the first or top of the second paragraph. And from what I've seen, the article format of many organizations widely regarded as terrorist organizations is quite varied. Check out TPLF, Students' Islamic Movement of India, Boko Haram, Aum Shinrikyo. DriedGrape (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Charles Essie:, would you like to add your opinion? SkyEditor85 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not accuse each other. Discuss on the article, not on each others behavior.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather collapse the talk than delete it, Paradise. Done. DriedGrape (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You have no rights to delete my comments just because you feel like it contains accusations. Also, as I said before it's not accusation, it's a fact that DriedGrape is blocked/banned several times for disruptive editing, WP:PUSH and biased edits. You have been also warned/blocked for similar reasons. It feels suspicious when you delete my comments/replies with all justifications... The edit is against five different rules: 1) It contains misinformation. It says designated as a terrorist organization by... and other countries which is confusing as other countries is not same thing as some other countries. The PKK is not classified as a terrorist organization by most of the countries and the UN, so it's weird to use that sentence. 2) It's not neutral to mention the organization's terrorist label by some countries already in the first phrase, especially if it's not seen as a terrorist organization by most countries. It's deliberately added there for Google Knowledge Engine. 3) It's duplicate. The information is already under table with more comprehensive and neutral version. It makes no sense to repeat it twice with misinformation (1). 4) It has been added before and it was deleted every single time. 5) Wikipedia is not Turkish encyclopedia, it's neutral international encyclopedia. --- Also, it breaks many other rules. SkyEditor85 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Who cares if he was blocked or or banned as long as he takes part in the discussion on topic. Everybody has the right to get better. So, to get back on track. Any objection to adding the some before other countries? That'd be a minor first compromise. Then also, I'd prefer the EU mentioned where its is also stated that the EU has lost before court on the terrorist designation to provide some context. And @SkyEditor85, to provide the diffs where the terrorist designation was added and removed would be helpful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I don’t agree to compromise with users who have shady editing background with several bans/blocks. That terrorist designation part was added to the first phrase by a newly made account without any explanation and consensus. Thus, it should be completely removed. I will soon do it myself regardless of your opinions. Wikipedia will literally sink in misinformation if we have to spend days discussing for deletiion of edits that are biased, incorrect and added without consensus. Also, If you were not biased user, you would revert it and then continue this discussion. Also, find yourself those edits from the history page. You are clearly trying to pretend to be an appropriate editor with good faith in order to prevent reverting such bias. You all have same edit patterns, I have no time for you. SkyEditor85 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Didn't know it was just recently added like a repetition of what was mentioned in more detail below. The diff and date of diff would have been helpful. Just for a next discussion. Happy editing. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise_Chronicle: Sorry I reverted your edit but please do not take hasty action especially with the very first sentence in the lead. I think a rewrite to fit the categorization part to the first or top of the second paragraph would be better. Designation of organizations being on the very bottom of the lead is not only unusual but unhelpful. DriedGrape (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it was really just added on the 25th of November. And it is mentioned much more in detail just below, but also in the lead. The present version of the 25th November which mentions the terrorist designation twice! is not the stable at all. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How about trimming the entire designation part down by removing the lengthy sentence about Belgium, which is already in the body with more accurate info and appropiate category anyways and putting it at the start of the second paragraph? Also the remainder which is the mutual terror accusations could be moved to the third paragraph where it would be more appropiate anyways as it describes the background history of their conflict? Let me know what you think! DriedGrape (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's worth a thought. I tried to make it fit. But today I can't anymore as otherwise it might be worth a block. What we can do, is wording it out here at the talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I'm burned out for today but will return to write it out here as well. DriedGrape (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What I meant was this, this moves the terrorist designation part as a separate, second paragraph, before the background history and ideology part. Combines the terror accusations part with the conflict paragraph, removes the specific example of Belgium which isn't fully accurate according to the body and doesn't really belong to the lead, changes "many analysts, to "some analysts" as sources cited are singular and "many" is more vague. "Other countries" to "some other countries". I think this is a much better read and more of a WP:SUMMARY : (collapse)

Extended content

The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK (Kurmanji Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê)[a] is a Kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement, which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey,[26] United States,[27] the EU[28] and some other countries.[29][30] The PKK has historically operated throughout Greater Kurdistan, but is now primarily based in the mountainous Kurdish-majority regions of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. Since 1984, the PKK has utilized asymmetric warfare in the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (with ceasefires between 1999–2004 and 2013–2015). Although the PKK once sought an independent Kurdish state, in the 1990s its aims shifted toward autonomy and increased rights for Kurds within Turkey. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, the EU, Japan, Australia, and some other countries;[26][27][28][29][30] however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial, as some analysts and organizations contend that the PKK does not engage in organized terrorist activities, or systemically target civilians.[51][52][53][54][55][56] Although the EU Court of Justice ruled in 2008 and 2018 that the PKK was classified as a terror organization with a lack of due process,[57][58] the EU still classifies the PKK as a terror organization.[59] The PKK's ideology was originally a fusion of revolutionary socialism and Marxism-Leninism with Kurdish nationalism, seeking the foundation of an independent communist Kurdistan. The initial reasons given by the PKK for this were the oppression of Kurds in Turkey and under capitalism.[31][32] At this time, the use of the Kurdish language, dress, folklore, and names were banned by the Turkish state,[33] including the words "Kurds" and "Kurdistan".[34] Following the military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[35] Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested and imprisoned.[36] The PKK was formed as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey's Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for the Kurdish minority.[37] The PKK has been involved in armed clashes with Turkish security forces since 1979, but the full-scale insurgency did not begin until 15 August 1984, when the PKK announced a Kurdish uprising. Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 people have died, most of whom were Kurdish civilians.[38][39] In 1999, PKK leader Öcalan was captured and imprisoned.[40] In May 2007, serving and former members of the PKK set up the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella organisation of Kurdish organisations in Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian Kurdistan. In 2013, the PKK declared a ceasefire and began slowly withdrawing its fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan as part of a peace process with the Turkish state. The ceasefire broke down in July 2015.[41] In March 2016, the PKK joined the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement, an alliance with the aim of overthrowing the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.[42] Both the PKK and the Turkish state have been accused of engaging in terror tactics and targeting civilians throughout the conflict. The PKK has historically bombed city centres,[43][44][45] while Turkey has depopulated and burned down thousands of Kurdish villages and massacred Kurds in an attempt to root out PKK militants.[46][47][48][49][50]

DriedGrape (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed and adapted the lead rather generously. The KCK and the HBDH are as to me not notable enough for the lead. Those and also the Belgium terror designation part should be added in the body, because they are not mentioned there. I have also added the foundation date of 1978. And I see the 3rd paragraph as more fit for the terrorist designation. In this version the lead has more than 320 words as before the lead had ca. 520.

Extended content

The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK () is a Kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement, which has historically operated throughout Greater Kurdistan, but is now primarily based in the mountainous Kurdish-majority regions of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. Since 1984, the PKK has utilized asymmetric warfare in the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (with ceasefires between 1999–2004 and 2013–2015). Although the PKK once sought an independent Kurdish state, in the 1990s its aims shifted toward autonomy and increased rights for Kurds within Turkey. The PKK's ideology was originally a fusion of revolutionary socialism and Marxism-Leninism with Kurdish nationalism. The PKK was formed in 1978 as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey's Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for the Kurdish minority. At this time, the use of the Kurdish language, dress, folklore, and names were banned by the Turkish state, including the words "Kurds" and "Kurdistan".Following the military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life. Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested and imprisoned. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, the EU, Japan, Australia, and some other countries; however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial, as many analysts and organizations contend that the PKK does not engage in organized terrorist activities, or systemically target civilians. Although the EU Court of Justice ruled in 2008 and 2018 that the PKK was classified as a terror organization with a lack of due process, the EU still classifies the PKK as a terror organization. The PKK has been involved in armed clashes with Turkish security forces since 1979, but the full-scale insurgency did not begin until 15 August 1984, when the PKK announced a Kurdish uprising. Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 people have died, most of whom were Kurdish civilians. In 1999, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan was captured and imprisoned.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Their *current* designation should be mentioned before giving background history. So, second paragraph makes more sense as the first two should relating to contemporary status, then the rest to background history as is common in most other organization pages and according to WP:LEAD. That format you suggest would be contemporary > historic > contemporary > historic which isn't a good read. Also, removing such a large portion of the conflict history is unhelpful I'd say. Trimming vs. just axing a lead is different. I'd agree with the removal of KCK and HDBH but ceasefires and other conflict details should be included. I did see your suggestion to merge the PKK history page with this one but still the current articles body does go into lengthy detail about the conflict and the lead should still summarize and reflect that. Also the mutual terror accusations should remain, as to again, reflect the body. Also I fixed your collapsible, it was trying to eat up the other discussion below. DriedGrape (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise_Chronicle, I believe that your lead contribution that claims "Turkey views the demand for education in Kurdish language as supporting terrorism because it is a demand by the PKK as well." is WP:UNDUE as it is in the second paragraph of the lead and inaccuraute as it is only one source that only alludes to the possibility of that with the quote: "Parallels between the HDP’s and the PKK’s political stances are also often con­sidered evidence. For example, the fact that both the PKK and the HDP call for Kurdish children to be taught in their native language is presented as proof that there is an organic connection be­tween the two organisations." I'd say there needs to be much better and multiple sources to include that in the lead, and before that even, in the body first. Also, I'll be removing the Belgium sentence from the lead like I suggested if you do not object, let me know. DriedGrape (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the following phrase of the SWP source which goes: Anyone that advocates this teaching, the application claims, is guilty of supporting terrorists or is even a terrorist himself. Further I agree on to move the Belgium phrase to the terrorist designation part.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My point was is this lead material, or maybe even WP:FRINGE? For the lead to exclaim such a bold and wide ranging claim, it has to be backed up much better than this. And with more in the body first. Is "teaching Kurdish is terrorism support" a stance frequently and visibly shown by the Turkish government? Considering the source is a commentary on the application for the banning of HDP, and it even also says: "The wording gives the im­pression that it was formulated in a great hurry, even precipitately – further proof that the procedure was not launched based on legal considerations but rather at the behest of politicians, which is why the appli­cation was rejected.", wouldn't the current phrase in the article be a stretch with what the reader has as a singular source? And even misdirective? There just needs to be more here rather than a single vague point in a hastily made document. Also, I was on the opinion of the phrase about Belgium's designation being removed from the lead entirely as it is too specific, and having it in the terrorist designation section without including the rest of the information from the body, that is the Belgian government's announcement that the courts ruling wouldn't change the PKK's designation, would be misinformative. DriedGrape (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References

International support

One Cypriot person is not the republic of Cyprus. Per this source which was given as source, the Cypriot Government initiated an investigation on the whereabouts of the passport, but to no avail, the former bearer wouldn't respond. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You are forgetting the material from the Greece section above where it's cited "Greeks also dispatched arms through the Republic of Cyprus.", I guess that should be added to the Cyprus section though. I have also found another source supporting that fact. I'll re-add the section with that material and include the passport part in a clearer manner. DriedGrape (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

But then you re-add the passport story? With what logic? Could you elaborate on that? It is sourced with the same source as before in which the Cypriot Government admits the passport was issued on Mavros Lazaros an investigation was initiated on the whereabouts but no results came out of it and that's it. Also, in the Gunter article all he cites are Turkish sources which are obviously weird. Armenian and Kurdish resistance (Terrorism per the source) only began after Turkey occupied Cyprus? A greek military official met Mahsun Korkmaz in 1988? Korkmaz died in 1986. I suggest a self revert. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to word the passport part differently, I still think it should be included in the article since the source you stated also says: "The Attorney General clarified the inquiry within the areas of Republic of Cyprus controlled by the government was completed, but "the whole inquiry should not be considered as completed". He explained that further investigation abroad should follow as well as a scientific examination by Cypriot police experts of the Cypriot passport allegedly held by the Turkish authorities". The Gunter article points to the implication made by the Turkish FM regarding the claim of the Armenian and Kurdish resistance. Second paragraph on page 461 states "The Greeks also dispatched arms to the PKK through the Greek Cypriot administration". Also the visit was not to Mahsum Korkmaz himself but to the PKK base named after him. I suggest you re-read the article and please do not revert without further discussion. DriedGrape (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it can also be understood that it was the camp Mahsum Korkmaz was staying, but you are probably right there. That it is Turkish sources who claim so should be clarified. If there is a Greek source or a Cypriot, it would be way better. And if the passport story is written as it is explained here, the Cypriot Government tried to end support from the Cypriot people to the PKK, and not support the PKK. Bottom line on 463 it says based on the evidence above, Greek support was marginal at best. Evidence was provided by Turkish sources Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a wlink to the base camp, even though the article for it doesn't exist, could be clearer? "the Cypriot Government tried to end support from the Cypriot people to the PKK, and not support the PKK" what do you mean? The current sources do not state anything like that. Do you have any that do? "Evidence was provided by Turkish sources" not really, the article states many sources from many different backgrounds and it states Greek support as marginal compared to other states that were the topic in the previous pages of the article. DriedGrape (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph on terrorist designation in the lead

This paragraph needs to be rewritten entirely. Previously, there was a sentence about controversy surrounding the terrorist designation, supported by a bunch of opinion pieces in various news outlets. An anonymous editor removed this, then it was reinstated, and then I reverted the reinstatement since these sources are clearly inadequate to support the claim that there is a general "controversy" about this designation. There needs to be academic sources to support this claim, and there are such academic sources e.g. this paper that describes the controversy or Ali Kemal Özcan's 2005 book, Turkey's Kurds: A Theoretical Analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, p. 8. That being said, there is a substantial volume of academic literature that unreservedly discusses the PKK as a terrorist organisation, and this needs to be reflected clearly in the lead and the body of the article. The paragraph also gives undue weight to one specific EU court decision.

The sentence that was removed also states "analysts and organizations contend that the PKK does not engage in organized terrorist activities, or systemically target civilians". It is simply unacceptable to have such a sentence in the lead without mentioning the well-documented use of child soldiers, the killing of teachers/civil servants by the PKK, which is already present in the body of the article. Any discussion of terrorist classification should come hand-in-hand with the acts that have contributed to this. The PKK was at one point widely cited as the biggest recruiter of child soldiers in Europe ([11]), this is an absolutely key detail. As detailed in some archived discussions, the lead discusses human rights violations by the government of Turkey at great length, it should then not shy away from discussing such violations by the PKK. We can't pick a side to "neglect" when it comes to human rights abuses.

There is also the sentence "Turkey views the demand for education in Kurdish language or the teaching of the Kurdish language as supporting terrorist activities by the PKK." Not only is this sentence poorly written, it is also simply inaccurate - the simple act of teaching Kurdish is by no means currently regarded as "supporting PKK" in Turkey and the sources (of which two are very out of date, having been published in 2008 and 2010 - one states that Kurdish-language broadcasting in Turkey is forbidden but TRT Kurdî started broadcasting soon after) do not support this statement. It is also irrelevant - it's not directly about the PKK and we have a separate article about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Yet when I removed it, it was reinstated. I would be grateful if Paradise Chronicle (who reinstated the sentence) could supply us with a direct quote confirming that this is indeed the case in Turkey at the moment. Simply saying "if the terrorist designation goes so far up to the lead this one, too" is not remotely sufficient to keep essentially a WP:OR violation in the lead section of a highly sensitive article.

I would be willing to write an alternative paragraph to replace this.

--GGT (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess that even wanting to learn or teaching the Kurdish language is seen as supporting terrorist activities by the PKK is a key detail in the terrorist designation of the PKK. The third source is of 2021, and focuses on the HDP closure case, yes a whole political party shall get banned for demanding Kurdish language eduction which is seen as supporting the PKK and this not the first time. If we add the source you suggested p.8 Özcan, can we re-add the phrase on the controversy? Then there was not one, but two EU court decisions in different decades. Then I'd be curious what source supports the systematic attacks on civilians by the PKK. On the other side, Turkey did exactly this in 2015, for example in the cities Cizre, Diyarbakir, Sirnak and Nusaybin. Undue weight, why? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

GGT Seeing your remorse for not getting any response before a revert, could you reply to me as well? I have introduced the source suggested by you here at the talk page after the controversy was re-added by Soapwort. And let's be frank, many countries do not classify the PKK as a terrorist organization and the EU court ruled twice that this classification was unlawful. Isn't it then a conflict between politics and the law and isn't this a controversy? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Paradise Chronicle:, I do apologise, I'll reply shortly. --GGT (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Are you able to provide a direct quote that supports the assertion that "even wanting to learn or teaching the Kurdish language is seen as supporting terrorist activities by the PKK"? The HDP case does not verify that this activity in and of itself is regarded as support for terrorism. Considering that there is a Department of Kurdish Language and Literature at one of Turkey's state universities, this statement seems pretty inaccurate to me.

The EU decisions are WP:UNDUE in the lead as it is about bureaucratic minutiae of the process of designation and explicitly not about the nature of PKK activities. The way it is being framed in the article is very misleading. This review sums it up well: "Just as the ECtHR didn’t provide a thorough examination of the specific status of the conflict and of the PKK, it is also the case that the ECJ didn’t explore the PKK's status under IHL but rather found lack of diligence and administrative compliance with the ‘terrorist’ designation process." (emphasis mine)

Obviously I'm not denying that there is a controversy, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested the sources above. Opinion pieces are clearly not acceptable sources for such a well-studied topic and it doesn't really help when users are dismissive against requests for proper sourcing for controversial issues. I don't have an issue with the controversy being described in the lead as it is of enough significance, but this needs to be in context. The PKK is widely regarded in literature as a terrorist organisation, this needs to be made clear as the first thing. The nature of PKK activities against civilians (massacres, suicide bombings, killings of teachers) are explained in detail in the article and are well-sourced, these need to be in the same paragraph. I'll shortly make some edits in line with my comments here.

--GGT (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This for example is a good way to contextualise the controversy, but it's only a start, the paragraph needs to be cleaned up and have relevant content about terrorist tactics added. --GGT (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be interesting, because in the very source you brought to cite their description as terrorists they already write the description by the Turkish authorities is misleading and state: Instead, the PKK should be viewed as a political organization whose pursuit of political aims is most likely to be settled not through continued violent conflict but at the negotiating table. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi GGT, I apologize for reinstating the edit without responding here first, I hadn't yet seen your new section here on the talk page.

I can see your point that the stating the PKK's terror designation is controversial could be considered WP:SYNTH using only the provided references, but the inclusion of these references and their analysis was neither WP:UNDUE or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The PKK's terror designation is perhaps one of the most noteworthy controversies regarding the organization in recent years; this is unambiguously stated in the paper you provided: "Today, the status of the PKK as a terrorist organization is a controversial issue." Of course opinion pieces are used here when discussing matters of public policy and terror designations, which inherently have an element of subjectivity given the loosely defined concept of terrorism. These were properly used with attribution: "some analysts and organizations contend that..."; i.e. just as Turkey, the United States, and others contend the PKK is a terrorist organization. None of this analysis was exceptional or insignificant, they were from prominent editorial boards and policy institutes. I'm not sure either how the court decision is undue, this is mentioned frequently in discussions of the PKK's terror designations (e.g. the previously mentioned research) and is only mentioned for half of a sentence in the lead.

Furthermore, you go on to create the same aforementioned problem with your recent edits, except more egregiously: "The PKK is widely regarded as a terrorist group in academic literature". This synthesis is backed up by two references, the first of which is used rashly out of context. Take a look at the paragraph following your provided quote: "From a social constructionist standpoint, however, the label of 'terrorist' is a contested issue... This controversy is political and definitional, not simply empirical, and it is not the purpose of this article to resolve it. We employ the term to situate our work in the broader literature that applies the term terrorism to the PKK." The second such reference makes no conclusion at all about whether the PKK is a terrorist organization or should be considered one, only that it is widely considered to be so by others ("The PKK is widely regarded as a terrorist organization...").

Overall, I can't see how the sentence wasn't rendered more appropriately before, although some tweaking could be done regarding the previous issue.

Regarding the PKK's human rights abuses, attacks against civilians are already mentioned in the final paragraph, although I think the use of child soldiers is notable enough to add to the final sentence of the lead. Soapwort (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. The current paragraph on the terrorist status is unbalanced. There are 123 characters about how the PKK is generally regarded as a terrorist organisation and 371 characters about how it's not a terrorist organisation. This is massively WP:UNDUE, it needs to be the other way around, at the very least. Yes, there are scholars and analysts that argue that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation and a handful of states that have pointedly refused to list it as one, but these are a minority. Terrorism studies is an actual academic field with bucketloads of books and papers discussing the PKK; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, academic and secondary sources should take precedence over non-academic sources (let alone opinion pieces!) in general. That practically means we should not be citing opinion pieces by "analysts" in the lead of this article, full stop. Open any general reference work about terrorism e.g. the Historical Dictionary of Terrorism, Oxford Handbook of Terrorism, Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and you will find that they discuss the PKK as an undisputed terrorist organisation. Some random opinion piece on WaPo says that the PKK does not target civilians? That cannot be equated with the Oxford Handbook of Terrorism discussing the PKK's tactics targeting civilians. If terrorist designations "inherently have an element of subjectivity", all the more reason to apply WP:EXTRAORDINARY and stick only to academic sources.

I think confusion has resulted from one of the sources that I have given. The sentence is not out-of-context at all. The article essentially starts off by giving an overview of the pre-existing literature on terrorism, saying that the PKK is always regarded as a terrorist organisation in this field of scholarship. Up until here it is a WP:SECONDARY review of literature. It then commences its WP:PRIMARY argumentation - saying that this research piece itself will not take a side on this issue because of such and such. That does not negate the literature overview, which is what I'm citing. We use the secondary analysis, not the primary research.

"The PKK is widely regarded as a terrorist group in academic literature" - Something along these lines must be reinstated and indeed its removal constitutes a removal of sourced information. It is something else for states to recognise it as a terrorist group, academic literature is absolutely distinct from that. As things stand now, the lead section mentions literature that does not regard the PKK as a terrorist group and gives their rationale. It completely omits to mention the great amount of literature that does regard the PKK as a terrorist group and their rationales.

--GGT (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are 123 characters about how the PKK is generally regarded as a terrorist organisation and 371 characters about how it's not a terrorist organisation. Yes, there are scholars and analysts that argue that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation and a handful of states that have pointedly refused to list it as one, but these are a minority.

Actually there are no characters about either, because there is no general consensus about whether it is or isn't a terrorist organization among countries, academics, analysts, NGOs, etc.

Yes, there are scholars and analysts that argue that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation and a handful of states that have pointedly refused to list it as one, but these are a minority.

The onus is on you to show this, and neither source you provided did this. Moreover, the purpose of this paragraph was never to discuss how the PKK should be constructed philosophically, which is less notable and has no such academic consensus, but about its terror designations and their suitability in the current context, which has been written about extensively since 2015.

Some random opinion piece on WaPo says that the PKK does not target civilians? That cannot be equated with the Oxford Handbook of Terrorism discussing the PKK's tactics targeting civilians.

It's not. It mentions that some analysts and organizations contend this, although it should be revised to reflect that they believe the PKK no longer do this.

As things stand now, the lead section mentions literature that does not regard the PKK as a terrorist group and gives their rationale. It completely omits to mention the great amount of literature that does regard the PKK as a terrorist group and their rationales.

It mentions that some people question whether the PKK should be designated as a terrorist organization by western countries. The rationale for why something would be considered terror organization is pretty obvious, and even so it's already addressed later in the lead. Soapwort (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Why the hell first paragraph doesn't mention it's designated as a terrorist organisation?

I'm baffled. I've always heard about Western hypocrisy on Wikipedia but this is another level.

They are literally designated as a terrorist organisation by UN, USA and EU. Who are you waiting for, Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:14FD:3610:CE28:1B92 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph is fine. Maybe look Mos:lead Shadow4dark (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole article is about PKK's terrorist activities but the Lead.

The lead is also the summary, but in this summary there is no indication about terrorism :) Ermancetin (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the rest of the article this first paragraph has to be citiation of being terrorist organization. Adding this information to summary isn't againts being neutral. This is talked lots of times in article. Please consider that this is an international page, not just a Kurdish reviewers page. Ermancetin (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Not even the Islamic State, (a UN designated terrorist organization, which the PKK is not) is called a terrorist organization in the first paragraph, there it is in the last paragraph of the lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Kurdistan Workers' Party → PKK – Simple COMMONNAME issue. Google search of Kurdistan Workers' Party gives 2 million results while PKK gives 48 million results. Ecrusized (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

oppose for now. Most parties, organizations have probably (I didn't check all) more google hits with their acronyms than their fully spelled names. See also IRA and Irish Republican Army or CDU and Christian Democratic Union of Germany.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ecrusized (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

May also read WP:CONSISTENT which treats article titles. As to me the move would go against the WP:CONSISTENT which seems to be within a policy, while your other stuff is an essay.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Those examples are probably due to the natural disambiguation clause of MOS:ACROTITLE, since they're not the primary topic for their respective acronyms, IRA and CDU. That doesn't apply to this case. Colin M (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning support, though not for the reasons given in the nom. Google search results numbers are extremely fuzzed, to the point of having almost no probative value. What's relevant here is, per MOS:ACROTITLE, whether the party is "known primarily by its abbreviation" and whether that abbreviation "is primarily associated with the subject". Also, are "readers somewhat familiar with the subject [...] likely to only recognise the name by its acronym"? Scanning the sources cited in the article, it seems like this may be the case, though I'd be interested to hear whether editors more familiar with RS coverage of this topic agree. Colin M (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A few years ago, wanting read about the PKK on Wikipedia I Googled "PKK", since "Kurdistan Workers' Party" showed up in results, I thought Google was giving me a similar article. I searched this time for "PKK Wikipedia" and only after the "Kurdistan Workers' Party" showed up again I clicked the page and figured out it was the full name of the PKK. I had not seen the name anywhere up until then and could in no way connect it to PKK since it's abbreviation converts to KWP rather than PKK. So I fully support what you have stated here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. That an abbreviation for a title gets more hits than a full name is something I'd expect in most cases regardless, but encyclopedic titles don't, and shouldn't, rest just on search engine results. Like Paradise Chronicle above, consistency with the many similar cases like SS, CIA, FBI, FEMA, ICBM, etc. seems good, and I see no compelling reason to change. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Why not consistency with NASA, GCHQ, CSS, SQL, etc.? Colin M (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • PKK is not an abbreviation. Readers have no way of connecting Kurdistan Workers' Party, (KWP) with PKK. Ecrusized (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I note too that Britannica uses the full name, as do others, so it's hardly an obscure connection (particularly given the 2M hits the nominator claims). ╠╣uw [talk] 11:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as Paradise Chronicle and Huwmanbeing. Soapwort (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's shown in the article what PKK stands for, but I agree it might be helpful to mention that the Kurdistan Workers' Party is more often than not referred to as the PKK. Lucksash (talk) 15:52, 23 April 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.

Opponents in Infobox

The PKK is on the terror list of several countries, but this does not make them opponents from both points of view. The PKK has not waged war against the USA, so this mention is not really correct. On Israel I agree that it can be included as an opponent of Israel, I don't see the correct sources for it. I'd see them having supported the Palestines during the 1980s, but not because Israel sees them as a terrorist organization or else. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Olof Palme

Someone has undone my edition regarding the murder of Olof Palme. I will not go furhter with this, as my main responsibility is to keep the Swedish language WP as correct as possible. But in my opinion it is incorrect to mention Stig Engström in this context for two resons.

1. This is completely irrelevant in the context of PKK. Several theories regarding the murder have been presented since the PKK theory was dismissed, and and alleged murderer (Christer Pettersson) has been convicted in one trial and freed after appeal.

2. It is not the Swedish government who have pointed out Stig Engström, but the prosecutor leading an investigation that was ment to close the case.

If you want to keep the incorrect information I will not object, but I write this note for the record.--Chandra Varena (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted you because your addition was unsourced and the former one sourced. But thanks to your comment here I have replaced Swedish Government with State Prosecutor. And it might could be worded differently but since the PKK was suspected for a while, I believe it is due to show that someone else is deemed guilty. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The problemm is - the pointing out of Stig Engström has been strongly questioned and as he is dead he cannot defend himself. Here is a quate (goggle translated) from one of the largest Swedis papers the day after the press conference pointing out Engström: "Prosecutor Krister Petersson points out the so-called Skandiaman, Stig Engström, as a suspect. However, the material that has emerged is not considered sufficient for it to be considered proven in a court that Engström is guilty." https://www.svd.se/a/JojOq7/historiska-beskedet-om-palmemordet. After that witnesses have declared that Engström could not be the murderer. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/vittnena-det-var-inte-stig-engstrom-som-skot-olof-palmeThe Swedish "Counsler of justice" has received several appeals regarding slander. https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/efter-utpekandet-flera-anmalningar-om-fortal/

So I think it would be both wise and decent not to mention Engström's name. I suggest the you word it something like this:

however, in September 2020, the state prosecutor Krister Petersson pointed out a suspected murdererer and closed the case as that person is no longer alive. . Chandra Varena (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Chandra VarenaI reworded it a bit, without mentioning Engström and sourced it with one of the sources you provided.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thank you @Paradise Chronicle! -- Chandra Varena (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Israel

Relations between Israel and PKK have always been ambiguous. In February 16, 1999 fugitive Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Öcalan was arrested at the Greek embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. After a news report claimed that Israel's Mossad agency helped Turkey track Ocalan, Aseries of protests have been started in Europe.In February 17 Three Kurdish protesters were shot and killed while trying to occupy the Israeli consulate in Germany. In September 2017 IDF chief of staff, Yair Golan, siad at The Washington Institute: "I very much like the idea of an independent Kurdistan. Well, basically, I like the Kurdish people. And you know we’ve had good cooperation with the Kurdish people since the early 1960s. And looking at the Middle East today, I would say that the only positive development concerning the destiny of the Middle East is the emergence of some sort of Kurdish entity—independent entity."

Shortly after that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted:

"Israel rejects the PKK and considers it a terrorist organization, as opposed to Turkey, which supports the terror org. Hamas. While Israel rejects terror in any form, it supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to attain a state of its own."

he also replayed it on his state visit to Argentina. In May 2018 Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party and Kurdistan Workers Party have condemned the killings of Palestinians during Gaza border protests with Israeli troops after the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem. They also invited the involved sides to negotiate and compromise. In October 2019 At the onset of Operation Peace Spring, Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted:

“Israel strongly condemns the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish areas in Syria and warns against the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by Turkey and its proxies. Israel is prepared to extend humanitarian assistance to the gallant Kurdish people.”

He also offered the YPG Israeli assistance. During the offensive, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, stated: Israel indeed has a salient interest in preserving the strength of the Kurds and the additional minorities in the north Syria area as moderate and pro-Western elements, The possible collapse of the Kurdish hold in north Syria is a negative and dangerous scenario as far as Israel is concerned. The Turkish Army used 170 M60-A1 tanks upgraded by Israeli IMI Systems during the operation. These tanks were upgraded between 2003-2010 during the military cooperation between Israel and Turkey at a cost of $687 million. Seymour Hersh said that the U.S. and Israel supported PJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK.[190] The head of the PKK's militant arm, Murat Karayılan, said that Iran attempted to recruit the PKK to attack coalition forces, adding that Kurdish guerrillas had launched a clandestine war in north-western Iran, ambushing Iranian troops.[191] In 2022, During the piece negotiations of Turkey and Israel, Informed sources said that a delegation from Israel's Mossad spy agency had met with Turkish intelligence officials to discuss security issues. The Mossad agents told their Turkish counterparts that Israel is ready to cooperate with the PKK should Ankara continue its support for the Hamas military wing. Turkey admitted that it was concerned about the potential for Israel to back the Kurdish PKK militia in response to Ankara's alleged support for the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, Rai Al-Youm reported on Tuesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirfataei (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Propose changing "while Turkey has depopulated and burned down thousands of Kurdish villages and massacred Kurdish civilians in an attempt to root out PKK militants"

I read the notes and non of them count as reliable sources. All of them are known for beeing pro PKK before. This sentence sounds like its an all known fact. But its just an accusation and it must be made clear as such. So would you be kind and change it?

Turkey is beeing accused of killing kurdish civilians and destroying villages during its attempt to neutralise PKK fighters. Turkish Defence Minister however declines the accusation.

[12]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35424525 Knightfire66 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34280461 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightfire66 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

By what measure do they not count as reliable sources? The sentence mostly follows the language from the first source in a peer-reviewed journal. Soapwort (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"By what measure" -well first the original article of that source is dated further back then 2015. So before the described accusation in that sentence. And also I believe "BBC" and its more recent article is a bit more reliable. And also if you research more about the authors of those sources then it will be clear that it wouldnt be right to use them as a neutral and reliable source. E.g. Gülistan Gürbey. She is a well known member of the PKK. It wouldnt be trustful to use her article as a source for such a serious and hateful accusation. If true or not. My point here is about the writing form. Not about its content.

The sentence is talking about historical events. It's well documented that the Turkish military depopulated Kurdish villages in the 1990s, your BBC article is about the 2015 clashes in Diyarbakir. Also, the article mentions this: "During the conflict, which reached a peak in the mid-1990s, thousands of villages were destroyed in the largely Kurdish south-east and east of Turkey". Soapwort (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt Gülistan Gürbey is a well known PKK member... she seems to be rather welcome in the academic world having become a Dr. pursuing a PhD at a University in Berlin and published a rather specialized book on Turkey in 1980s-early 1990s. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

First it said: "The ceasefire broke down in July 2015." And then the mentioned sentences follow. So there is a chance that readers would think that Turkey did that in 2015. If you talk about past then you have to make it clear. So then probably adding something like "Turkey is accused of depopulating and burning down ... in the past." Else people would think that this was done in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightfire66 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Since 2015, they claim the cities population and its elected mayors are the PKK militants. I guess it is phrased fair. Sure it can be adapted, but for Turkey it is rather good for now. The phrase on the child soldiers has much lesser sources, compared to the following of the burned villages.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Website in Infobox

A recent edit removed the PKK's website from the Infobox. I propose putting it back, even though the status as a terrorist organization is disputed. For example: the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is also described as a terrorist organization and a guerilla movement, yet the website is listed in the Infobox. Should Wikipedia link to a political party's website if that party utilizes military tactics?

I also support putting it back. Common practice for Political Parties is that the Website is in the infobox. With armed forces its for now a decision of consensus. The French Army includes it, then again the US army doesn't include it. The German Bundesheer also not. I believe the PKK is more a political party than an aremed one, its armed wing is the not so well known HPG, which has its separate article. Its terror classification should not bother too much in this I believe.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Opponents in Infobox

The PKK is on the terror list of several countries, but this does not make them opponents from both points of view. The PKK has not waged war against the USA, so this mention is not really correct. On Israel I agree that it can be included as an opponent of Israel, I don't see the correct sources for it. I'd see them having supported the Palestines during the 1980s, but not because Israel sees them as a terrorist organization or else. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone some argument to keep the opponents listed in it? I mean the Israeli armed forces don't list the PKK as its opponent. The US army also doesn't list Germany or Japan as its opponents and vice versa. In articles on Battles the parties are mentioned, but in infoboxes in their main article not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)