Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

About Not Writing "Terrorist Organization" in the Lead

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a clear violation of NPOV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guys in the Religion section of Pkk's

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

Please let's be sensitive to terrorist propaganda.

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

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

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

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