Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurdistan Workers' Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wik.ipedia.Pro? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wik.ipedia.Pro, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A fact from this article was featured on Wik.ipedia.Pro's Main Page in the On this day section on November 27, 2011 and November 27, 2013.

A news item involving Kurdistan Workers' Party was featured on Wik.ipedia.Pro's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 May 2013.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Claire Goforth (18 October 2019). "The latest front in Turkey's digital war against the Kurds? Google reviews". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 31 October 2019. Elsewhere, on Wik.ipedia.Pro, people sympathetic to Turkey have edited PKK's page several times in recent days, using unreliable sources or misstating facts to label it a terrorist group. (Several nations, including Turkey and the U.S., have designated it as such; however, many nations, as well as the U.N. and NATO, have not.)

This article is rated B-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kurdistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The source for the designation of Israel is unfounded. It’s based on Netanyahu’s word and not on proper legislation or lack thereof. On the contrary - the PKK doens’t appear in the official terrorist organization designation list of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. See: https://nbctf.mod.gov.il/en/Minister%20Sanctions/Designation/Pages/downloads.aspx (accessed April 18 2024). Moto53|Talk to me! 10:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeonChrisfield: please explain your removal of MERIP, AEI and Progressive International references. I don't see how any of these fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources or fail verification for the PKK espousing a progressivist ideology. The op-eds are used per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Soapwort (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all that’s go through those article:

“Americans Shouldn’t Accept Erdogan’s Cynical Stance on the PKK”

This article has only mentioned a progressive government once referring PKK laid down arms and escaped to Syria, or what was referred as “Syrian Kurds”, equalizing Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria under the SDF and YPG as a PKK subgroup. Whilst both groups are allies and have many similarities, it’s misleading to say both groups are the same organizations or use it as a fact that PKK is progressive, and the article’s mentions of PKK’s engagement of terrorism further complicates things. Additionally, it didn’t mention about what values they hold are considered progressive other than resisting Turkey’s discrimination, and said the group was founded based on “ethnic grounds” or drawing parallels with South Africa, but not specifically on the progressive values themselves. If anything it should be referenced in the connections between PKK and SDF/Northern Autonomous Administration in Syria.

For the second article, “Mad Dreams of Independence”, the only “progressive” reference is the 1950s and 1960s “progressive nationalist” Kurdish politics, not directly referring the PKK. There is mentioning of the goal of a “democratic and federal” state with the Kurdish Socialist Party, which is aligned with the “Democratic Confederalist” ideology and should have been referenced correctly.

Finally, the third article of the Progressive International was written by the a journalist of the “ Rojava Information Center”, a media organization that represents the interests of the SDF and the PKK, and declared its support of Ocalan. If a Turkish media like Daily Sabah cannot be used due to its perceived bias, I don’t see how a pro-PKK media source can be used.

Wik.ipedia.Pro: Biased Source: Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedanwrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Clearly those biased sources should be more appropriately given in-text references in such a highly contentious article, especially considering one of the articles have a pro-PKK media’s reference that shouldn’t be used as a direct source when reporting facts about PKK’s ideologies or atrocities. LeonChrisfield (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the highly contenious and controversial nature of the article as per the templates would naturally require better sources, especially those have direct evidences and discussions about a certain ideology to be cited, rather than the media affiliated with either the PKK or the Turkish state, which is generally unreliable in this case. LeonChrisfield (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian socialism is already listed. And when you click on Communalism, it just takes you to the paragraph where it talks about Libertarian municipalism and Libertarian Socialism. Same thing, different words. It's repetitive. 67.71.58.194 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would just like to point out that the grey wolves which is on the opposite end of the political spectrum is described as a terrorist organisation within the first paragraph despite not being recognised as so outside of Kazakhstan whereas there is no mention of this within the first paragraph of this page despite being designated as a terrorist organisation by the entire western world 2A04:4A43:525F:D1D0:C0A3:F03F:6DBF:3405 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"however, the labeling of the PKK as a terrorist organization is controversial to some analysts and organizations, who believe that the PKK no longer engages in organized terrorist activities or systemically targets civilians."

Should this be removed since they just conducted a terrorist attack?

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: recent events have (probably) not changed the existence of this perception of the organization. Especially considering the building was a government facility, so people can argue that it did not target civilians and therefore is not terrorism (please consider: what matters is not the validity of this view, but its existence, as that is what the article is making note of).

Unless we see a significant shift in the opinion of the mentioned "analysts and organizations", I think this should be kept. Mason7512 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]