[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SkyEditor85 (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 1 December 2021 (→Neutrality of the article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([1]) listed that makes this claim relies on its own citation that strangely makes no mention of the PKK whatsoever ([2]). Going to remove this for now. Soapwort (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.refworld.org/docid/52f3438d4.html
  2. ^ https://biblio.helmo.be/opac_css/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4835

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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. [1] 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 [2] --Serok Ayris (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partiya_Karker%C3%AAn_Kurdistan%C3%AA
  2. ^ https://pkk-online.com/en/

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)[reply]

Definitely disagree. First off, that second sentence in the lead isn't there because "a group of editors spend time making sure it's there", it's there because it's relevant and stable information. Removing the sentence would not in any way improve the article, on the contrary. The lead couldn't be more neutral since it only states that many countries and organizations recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization, in compliance with MOS:TERRORIST and WP:INTEXT. DriedGrape (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually been there several times and deleted every single time. The information is already there below table, so why repeat it twice with additional misinformation? Also it should be some other countries not other countries as more than half of the planet doesn't recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization. Additionally, jumping to terrorist label with misinformation (and other countries part) is not in compliance with MOS:TERRORIST and neither with WP:INTEXT. As this article[1] mentions there is clearly a pattern between edits and Google knowledge engine. If you google PKK, Google will show you exactly that sentence where it's mentioned the PKK is'a terrorist organization without even providing basic knowledge. It's what editors try to seek and it's clearly against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Not the first time... SkyEditor85 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate diff's to prove this lead is not stable. What do you mean "disinformation"? Do you not find the sources reliable? They're either official state websites or solid sources. On the other hand, you have tried to use The Daily Dot twice to claim a WP:FRINGE point. The point of the lead is to summarize the body. As you admitted, the information can and must be found below. Select relevant information on the body is to be shortened and included in the lead, not the other way around. The wording is fine, it doesn't even claim it is the majority of the world that recognize it as such. But I do agree that if it is just a few countries, it's better to list them all rather than the current slightly vague wording. If you were to actually read WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST, you'd see the current format is in compliance. It feels like this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT DriedGrape (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? What sources? I just said that the information that it’s seen as a terrorist organization is already written in the same section (below). It’s clearly repetation to repeat it twice in the lead section for Google knowledge engine. Also no, you are definitely wrong, ”other countries” is not the same thing as ”some other countries”. It’s not WP:IDONTLIKEIT it’s clearly against NPOV and that’s why I asked third opinion. SkyEditor85 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Skyeditor for pointing it out and also to Driedgrape for taking part in the discussion. We must admit that it is mentioned twice! in the lead that it is a terrorist organization by... This is not even the case at the UN designated terrorist organizations I have checked. Let's calm down and discuss it reasonably, Wikipedia has a solution for quite a lot. After reading MOS:LEAD, I figure terrorist should be used in the lead, but after reading MOS:LEADNO not twice and after reading MOS:FIRST probably also not in the first phrase. Let's see with what you come up with, after reading those MOS shortcuts. Maybe you find other MOS shortcuts as well with which you can come up as arguments.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Hamas there are several countries cited which designate it as a terrorist organization, beside others that do not. Maybe this helps, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Oh here we go again, the ancient old Wikipedia discussion... yeah yeah it's wrong according to this and that but you know I still support that and I think we should discuss this and you should come up with arguments. Oh god.... even a small kid could read that the organization is not classified as a terrorist organization by more than half of the countries and the UN... and additionally its terrorist designation is even controversial in those countries that have added it to their terrorist list. Saying it's classified as a terrorist organization by X and Y and other countries is definitely against Wikipedia:Disinformation. This itself with duplicate issue is enough to roll it back to the previous version. Also what's even other countries? It's disambiguate. Assuming that Wikipedia is international unbiased encyclopedia, not the Turkish state encyclopedia, it would make no sense to emphasize the organization's controversial terrorist designation in the first phrase with misinformation. I keep good faith but it's hard to believe this conservation will ever end in consensus, as the user (DriedGrape) has been several times banned/blocked due to edit wars and WP:PUSH. You have similar history... Additionally, it was not shocking to read that DriedGrape would rather keep the first sentence and edit the second mention....to more Turkish state or nationalism like POV. I don't really have time to argue all day and all I can say that keeping that highlighted terrorist designation in the first phrase is totally nonsense if you think outside the box, and it's no surprising at all that it was deleted before. After spending a few hours reviewing these pro-Turkish accounts, it's obvious that even if we delete that terrorist designation part from the first phrase, per Wikipedia:Disinformation or even MOS:FIRST, another newly made account will appear again and put it back there...and because it's obvious that they know that most users don't have time to spend days and weeks in the talk page trying to neutralize back the article, they will keep repeating it over and over. That previous edit request I made is bringing the article back to the previous version which was reached as a result of hard work by many editors here. SkyEditor85 (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of POV pushing and other nonsensical stuff is WP:PA. Seeing as though you have registered just yesterday -and ironically claim newly edited accounts are trying to POV push here- it may be better to familiarize yourself with WP:GUIDELINES and WP:PILLARS first. Also maybe WP:RS since you aren't providing reliable sources to justify your suggestions and in fact wanting well sourced content removed. Nor are you going one step outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT.DriedGrape (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you of POV pushing, I am saying that you have been practicing it very very long time with consequences like getting banned/blocked several times. Your user talk page tells a lot about you editing traditions. Oh and no, I am not POV pushing like you, I asked editors to comment that edit till you came up with nonsense arguments. Despite telling you that it's duplicate and also misinformation, you keep pushing your POV. And once again, when I prove your nonsense arguments, you keep jumping to sources... even though those sources are already added to the article and there's a list of countries classifying the PKK as a terrorist organization and the ones that are not classifying it as a terrorist organization. You still keep repeating same nonsense argument. I would have said read WP:Disinformation and WP:NPOV but looking at your editing history, you have been banned and blocked several times for breaking these rules. SkyEditor85 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not accusing you of POV pushing [...] I am not POV pushing like you". You are trying to "gain third opinions", yet get mad when those don't conform your opinion, and even get mad toward Paradise who has been trying to be the most neutral and welcoming under this thread. Calling my arguments just "nonsense" over and over and attacking my person does not help anything and is simply a waste of time. Again, I highly urge you to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and how Wikipedia works. DriedGrape (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


It’s definitely weird to have two frequently blocked/banned users supporting edit which literally breaks more than 4 rules. It’s even more weird when they keep ignoring these same rules and try to find something to keep the edit. I have no time to talk with users like you. SkyEditor85 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paradise, I believe putting that further below would be doing the vital information injustice and the reader. The current lead works with MOS:OPEN, giving only the most notable examples of countries that recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization and not outright labeling it as such. The second mention further below in the lead is not merely a duplicate however, but it's used rather to allude on the controversies on its designation, the accusations of terror tactics of both parties, and that it's designation has recently become controversial. So maybe it would be better to just change the second mention to something like "While the PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, the EU, Japan, Australia, and other countries; the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial, as many analysts...". But I still think the former part we're discussing should be in at least the first or top of the second paragraph. And from what I've seen, the article format of many organizations widely regarded as terrorist organizations is quite varied. Check out TPLF, Students' Islamic Movement of India, Boko Haram, Aum Shinrikyo. DriedGrape (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Charles Essie:, would you like to add your opinion? SkyEditor85 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not accuse each other. Discuss on the article, not on each others behavior.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather collapse the talk than delete it, Paradise. Done. DriedGrape (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have no rights to delete my comments just because you feel like it contains accusations. Also, as I said before it's not accusation, it's a fact that DriedGrape is blocked/banned several times for disruptive editing, WP:PUSH and biased edits. You have been also warned/blocked for similar reasons. It feels suspicious when you delete my comments/replies with all justifications... The edit is against five different rules: 1) It contains misinformation. It says designated as a terrorist organization by... and other countries which is confusing as other countries is not same thing as some other countries. The PKK is not classified as a terrorist organization by most of the countries and the UN, so it's weird to use that sentence. 2) It's not neutral to mention the organization's terrorist label by some countries already in the first phrase, especially if it's not seen as a terrorist organization by most countries. It's deliberately added there for Google Knowledge Engine. 3) It's duplicate. The information is already under table with more comprehensive and neutral version. It makes no sense to repeat it twice with misinformation (1). 4) It has been added before and it was deleted every single time. 5) Wikipedia is not Turkish encyclopedia, it's neutral international encyclopedia. --- Also, it breaks many other rules. SkyEditor85 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares if he was blocked or or banned as long as he takes part in the discussion on topic. Everybody has the right to get better. So, to get back on track. Any objection to adding the some before other countries? That'd be a minor first compromise. Then also, I'd prefer the EU mentioned where its is also stated that the EU has lost before court on the terrorist designation to provide some context. And @SkyEditor85, to provide the diffs where the terrorist designation was added and removed would be helpful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don’t agree to compromise with users who have shady editing background with several bans/blocks. That terrorist designation part was added to the first phrase by a newly made account without any explanation and consensus. Thus, it should be completely removed. I will soon do it myself regardless of your opinions. Also, If you were not biased user, you would revert it and then continue this discussion. Also, find yourself those edits from the history page. You are clearly trying to pretend to be an appropriate editor with good faith in order to prevent reverting such bias. You all have same edit patterns, I have no time for you. SkyEditor85 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
With whom? The state paid trolls? :) There is already article about these trolls[2] 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)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/turkey-propaganda-war-syria-google-reviews/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/turkey-propaganda-war-syria-google-reviews/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party&oldid=1058041240"