Talk:Democratic Society Party

Comments

Intro

Please do not add the social-democratic non-sense again. I worked the intro, with solid sources, to make it clear that this is the political wing of the PKK (popular support among some provinces doesn't exclude such a connection) and made clear that this party is nationalist, not merely "pro-Kurdish", an expression which, by the way, doesn't mean jack s*** in the English language. Can someone using the common rules of English language expression explain what "pro-Kurdish" means?? Kurdish nationalist? If not, what then? Just a party who likes the Kurds too much like an automobile club organizing weekend gatherings for collectioneers of Chevrolet 1956s? Damn, if I ever tried to modify MHP's article by modifying "nationalist" to "pro-Turkish", the insults would start flying all over the place. But when it is the political wing of a terrorist organization responsible for kidnappings, extortions, bombings, the biggest supplier of heroine to Europe as well as huge human-trafficking rings, they just become "pro-X". Damn, in which planet am I living in??

Anyways, most of the points in the intro are easily verifiable by most of the sources out there on the net, including the DTP-PKK connection. So if someone is not happy because s/he claims the sources are too "weak', just contact me instead of reverting/deleting and I can dig up sources by the kilo in a fairly short amount of time. Cheers! Baristarim 10:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary polygamy?

"Orhan Özer, the mayor of the minor municipality Rüstemgedik was expelled in May 2007 for practicing polygamy". This is the first time I am hearing about this :) I suppose the road to the dictatorship of the proloteriat goes via the garden of earthly pleasure. What a "social-democratic" party, eh? I mean the most weird thing is that nobody has a friggin' idea what DTP-PKK is. They claim leftist ideas sometimes, use Islamist notions occasionally, talk up the nationalist rhetoric most of the time, show signs of Stalinism within its ranks regularly and etc. Baristarim 10:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They are what I would call "Machiavelli on drugs".

"I'll fayke anythin' as lon as it taykes meh to mah endzz. Giff meeh anythin', I'll fayke anythin'. Socccialisssmm? I'll taayke it. Wha? Socialissmm is 80ss? Then I'll fake demofcracyyy!!"

Anyway, I don't pay attention to which label they go with these days, they are simply a Kurdish nationalist movement, what they want to achieve is very clear and out there.--Doktor Gonzo 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe what do you expect form fascists :) good to have DTP around the only fascist party of Turkey strange they want to be minority while all other fascist claim superiority of majority :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

The article has a separate section that deals specifically with any PKK connections. Why not move all the relevant stuff there? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro should summarize what shall be developed in the article, right? It is not just a small introductory note. The PKK connection (allegations) are widespread and very serious to be simply overlooked in the intro and relegated to a sub-section.

I see what you mean, however this PKK connection, in fact, forms the "raison d'etre" of the DTP. Many DTP members regularly praise Ocalan, claim emotional connections to the PKK and also claim the same "political base" as the PKK. All of what I mentioned is very well-documented, there is no doubt about it. Please see the latest source I added about the conference last week organized by the DTP and supervised by Zana, which called Ocalan the leader of the Kurdish people and called for his release. Zana also regularly praises Ocalan and calles him "the leader" (Serok in Kurdish, in German it is something close to the fuhrer). The sources are there.

So, I think the approach should be inversed: the PKK connection forms the fundamental point of focus for any description of the DTP, not just a small note. For example Sebahat Tuncel, a DTP MP, was in jail for alleged PKK connections in its armed wing when she was elected. Not just an idealogue. I know that there are many people who sympathize with Kurds and all, but this DTP doesn't represent the Kurdish people. This is not just about the AKP either, there is an all-Kurdish party called HAK-PAR which firmly condemns the PKK and calls it terrorist. That's all I am saying. Baristarim 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. However, you must admit that there is a good chance that it is Point-of-View-ish. After all we are talking about a party that has not been pronounced illegal by the Turkish state (which could be interpreted as insufficient evidence to link it operationally with the PKK), has legally elected local officials within Turkey, and is accepted by the S.I. as an observer party (Batasuna, a similarly controversial party is not accepted anywhere). I think that all this makes the PKK connection story a matter of Point-of-View. I do understand the POV and I'm not criticizing it here, but this is Wikipedia, eh? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I might have a bias - I wouldn't disagree. However, it is not purely a question of pov since the DTP-PKK connection accusations were definitely not invented by me. However, I hear your point and I promise to work more on the article, especially the intro, to clean it up more and add DTP's point of views and declarations, so that the intro reads really as if it was written by a completely uninformed thirdy-party as far as pov issues are concerned. Hopefully I will have the time to do it later tonight. If I don't, feel free to nag me about it :) Nevertheless, I do feel that at least the fact that such a controversy exists should be in the intro. But I agree that it's links with PES or SI should also be mentioned in the intro with the fact that it tries to present itself as social-democratic.

But, just between you and me, the fact that DTP claims leftist ideals, albeit "softer" ones like social democracy, points to the fact that there has to be some sort of a link with the PKK. I base this on the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Kurds are very pious Muslims. And Turks of Kurdish origin form the majority of the "cadres" of Islamist-based militant groups (see 2003 bombings in Istanbul, Turkish Hizbollah or IBDA-C). I am definitely not banging up on the Kurds by saying that, it is just a statement of fact. You and I also do know that many prominent statesmen, businessmen and artists in Turkey were/are ethnic Kurds. But the fact still remains that Kurds are pious in general. As such, a truly Kurdish party independant of the PKK (a self-proclaimed Maoist organization with Stalinst leanings) would have to be more religious based, like the AKP (this is the primary reason why DTP still has so much difficulty making in-roads with many Kurds and still stagnates around 4-5 percent of the vote). Many DTP MPs are (obviously) atheist to begin with! You see what I mean? As one of the sources says: "It is an open secret that DTP is linked to the PKK" :) Baristarim 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusations section

"Senior DTP leaders maintain that they support a unified Turkey within a democratic framework. Tuğluk published an article in Radikal in May 2007 to prove that claim.[28]"

This is not relevant to the section title. It all depends what they mean by "unified" and "democratic" (federation etc can fall into this description). However this is still irrelevant to the section title: It is not about their policies or ideologies, but their connections with the PKK. That sentence talks about their policies. I actually read that article in Radikal the day it came out, and there is absolutely no mention of the PKK in it. I think that that sentence should be moved to another section talking about the ideology of the party. Baristarim 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkey Takes Steps to Ban Kurdish Party

Turkish prosecutors have reportedly moved to ban a pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey that has been accused of colluding with Kurdish rebels.[1]---- Mr Blu3 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

yes those kurdish rebels are killing 12-13 year old Kurdish kids, do you have idea why arent they branded as terrorists in western media? cos thsoe civilians(mostly kurds) are not WASP as happened in ASALA, PKK killed 10 times more innocent people than al-qaida, racing with De-gaulle (killed 3 milllion algerians)