Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

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)

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." [1] 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[[2]] 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

Murat Karayilan statement from the Daily Telegraph

According to this reference[[3]], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

usa and pkk .

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

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

(redacted per WP:NOTFORUM)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

confusion with affialliated organizations

I suggest the following disambiguation: Template:Two other uses

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)

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)

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)