Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

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.

- [1] (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.
- [2] (2 February 2010) 4 people were arrested in Diyarbakır by the Gendarmerie for selling trafficked drugs to the PKK.
- [3] (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

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: [4], [5]; 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

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)

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)