Talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Turkish Militants

Article states 1.000 Turkish militants were killed by KWP. There is no such thing as Turkish "militants". Turkey has its army to protect its citizens. There are no militants. I'm removing that part of the expression which doesn't even state any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.75 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Move war

I think the move suggestion has a point. "Israeli-Palestinian" or "Turkish-Kurdish" terms are subjective. It implies a complete war between ethnicities as if two uniform fronts exist. In the Turkey vs PKK conflict that isn't the case. I believe there are plenty of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living normal lives outside of the west bank. How about a rename to "Turkey-Armed Rebels conflict" or "Turkey-Kurdish Armed Rebels conflict" or perhaps a better title along the lines better establishing each side. Same should be applied to the "Israeli-Palestinian" thing. -- Cat chi? 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was more known or more easy to find with the current name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't think they will change to the Israeli-Palestinian one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Current is relative :) We can do better than we are doing. "Better known" isn't always the best title. The clash isn't really an ethnic one. Turkish can mean "a citizen of turkey". Most PKK rebels were Turkish citizens even though they were uprising against their government. I merely want to better identify the sides. -- Cat chi? 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:White Cat, We can always give a link from that title, if making it easier to find is all the deal. Kerem Özcan 17:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i think this article and redirection are subjective. There is Turkey-PKK Conflict. PKK dont present The Kurdish People. and also Turkey dont conflict the kurdish people. this article try to seem Turkey-PKK Conflict as Turkish-Kurdish ethnicity conflict. More Kurdish people lives in Turkey and dont support PKK. We know the PKK try to their illegal works(narkotic traffic to europe, works for some countries' illegal operations, this area have rich patrol) to legalize. The illegal terrorist organization(in the list) seems to war for the Kurdish People for this way. there are poor kurdish people this area as all over Turkey. PKK created these poor people to attack the government's services and peoples. PKK also threats the kurdish people. I think Turkey-PKK Conflict will be true--Qwl 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The PKK was not the only armed Kurdish group fighting against the Turkish state, thus that title would be inaccurate. - Francis Tyers · 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I corroborate your idea. PKK threats Iran, Syria and Iraq too. Turkey-PKK, Iran-PKK, Syria-PKK, Iraq-PKK conflicts take part under PKK activities in Middle East or only PKK activities. --Qwl 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't Turkey-Kurdish conflict in the world. I support Qwl the true is Turkey-PKK Conflict.--Absar 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet, this article only deals with PKK and rightfully so. No need to generalize, especially in a way that will give false impressions. Anyway we almost only have the background section. We don't even have a lead section. DenizTC 12:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
PKK is in terrorist organization lists. We can say PKK=Terrorist Organization and PKK militants=Terrorist but we cant say Kurds=Terrorist. It is same as El Qaida=Terrorist Organization and El Qaida militants=Terrorists but we cant say Afghans=Terrorists. El Qaida also refuse Terrorist expression same as PKK :). It is SIMPLE. Why there is an EFFORT to suppose a Turkish-Kurdish ethnicity conflict???? I SUSPECT a manipulation. --Qwl 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

why I wrote these? There is a only Turkey-PKK conflict for Turkey. Why dont we write about Iran-PKK conflict. There are attacks to Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq. This problem is not only about TURKEY/TURKISH and KURDS. I said before More Kurdish people lives in Turkey and dont support PKK. There is a manipulation for different interests.--Qwl 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Do we have an article for the timeline of the conflict? DenizTC 12:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias

"According to an article printed in the November 2002 issue of the International Socialist, monthly paper of the International Socialists, during the conflict (and still [as of 2002]), the Turkish army tortured, killed and “disappeared” civilians.[8] In 1997, Amnesty International (AI) reported that, "'Disappearances' and extrajudicial executions have emerged as new and disturbing patterns of human rights violations ..." by the Turkish state.[9] According to an earlier (1996) report of AI, "in January 1996 the [Turkish] government announced that the PKK had massacred 11 men near the remote village of Guclukonak. Seven of the victims were members of the local village guard force. Independent investigations suggested that the massacre was the work of the security forces".[10] (see false flag)"

The above paragraph is in the introduction. Though it's good to voice opinion on both sides of the conflict, this paragraph solely attacks the Turkish Government, with almost zero mention of the PKK. Despite this, it may be an appropriate response to the paragraph before it, which lists PKK human rights violations. However in their respective articles you aren't supposed to list information on the other. There are criticism sections or pages that can be created on the Turkish Government and PKK pages for that purpose.

For example, a rebut to the list of PKK human rights violations (which doesn't mention the Turkish Government) could be a list of the positive accomplishments of the PKK. --Exander 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they can stay here (or be moved to PKK), but we should create a section for them, a title might be "Criticism". DenizTC 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that someone changed the words of the HRW letter to the Italian president, watering down significantly its criticism of rights violations by Turkish security forces, e.g. changing "serious violations" to "minimal violations", replacing "torture, extrajudicial killings" with "interrogations", and changing "we continue to demand" to "we continue to suggest". This is not only dishonest but silly since there is a link to the original document. I have restored the original text, but I wonder for how long...

A naming issue..

It should be Turkish-PKK conflict as IMO is more appropriate (gramm.) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But would be POV implying an ethnic clash which isn't the case. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
not, Turkish is adjective of Turkey --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the adjective of PKK, PKK? Turkish-PKKish conflict does not sound nice. DenizTC —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the first time I hear abbrevations have adjective forms . . . --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then, you should probably suggest Turkey-PKK conflict, as "adjective-noun" would be quite weird. I don't think it is exactly about abbreviations as well, as Turkish-Kurdistan Workers' Party-ish does not sound good either. I don't see such problems with Turkey-PKK conflict. DenizTC 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OMG, you didn't get the point... an abreviation doesn't need an adjective form, you dumb --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I suggested a proposal to merge October 7, 2007 Yüksekova incident into this article. I don't think that Wikipedia should have an article for each border conflict. In the context of the larger conflict, however, I feel that the issue is more than notable enough to be included into this article. Martijn Hoekstra 10:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As a different suggestion, how about we go in the same style as that article, and make one article per year for the incidents? Martijn Hoekstra 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Worst? It was a succesfull military operation with no civilian casualties. It just a normal part of any conflict. I support Merge. Carewolf 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge both October 2007 attacks but not with this article. Those lovely "successfull military operations" should stay together. DenizTC 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is all turkish political and military propaganda, it does not provide any serious or interesting information, this is the better way to make the wikipedia a bad and unreliable source. A Pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.25.232 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least read the article? DenizTC 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to notify everyone that those two October attacks are merged, per a parallel discussion. DenizTC 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view treat it as any guerrilla war or insurgency. o call it the "Turkish Insurgency", or "Turkish Civil Conflict" or "PKK Insurgency" or "PKK Conflict". Just look at other conflicts around the world and take a note (most of the above is how i hear the Colombian war phrased). I would say that "PKK Insurgency" is most appropriate since the pkk operates and fights in Syria, Iraq, and Iran as well. The conflict is in this sense much brauder than Turkey, even if the violence centers there. In my view.

New article

Shouldn't there be an article called "War in Kurdistan". Many sources speak of the war in kurdistan [1], a lot more than the "turkey-pkk conflict [2] and many books also speak of the "war in kurdistan". The turkish-pkk conflict is only part -although the biggest part- of a long ongoing conflict. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I need to l2read. Korrybean (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HEP-DEP and HADEP

Any info on these parties? Unavailable on Wikipedia. Seems to refer to [People's Labor Party]] (HEP)-Democratic Party (Turkey) (DEP) and People's Democracy Party (Turkey) (HADEP), not to be confused with the current Democratic Party. Tazmaniacs (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

oh really?? Kurdistan already established and we dont know it?? hmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.245.210 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

As long as the title of the article remains Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict, it must include information about abuses by both sides. If all references to human rights abuses committed by the Turkish government and army are removed, the title should be changed to "atrocities committed by the PKK". --Vindheim (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't copy + paste between articles. This article is about Turkey vs. PKK, not Turkey vs. Turkish citizens of Kurdish ethnicity. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Why should I not copy relevant information from other Wikipedia articles? The conflict between the PKK and Turkey must be placed in context.--Vindheim (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Background section expansion

the background could go as far back as [seljuq empire]

any kurds, armenians, ... who would like to contribute?

thanks! בינה תפארת (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Commanders Ranking

According to Turkish constitution, president is the commander in chief of Turkish Armed Forces.--139.179.199.172 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

turkeys die-information abouth pkk-turkey conflict is not true

the informations about turkey pkk conflict is not truee !

min.20.000 turkish soldiers dead and min.10.000 pkk freedom fighters dead


pls look to pkk informations too

turkey informations wrong!

GREETS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.185.10 (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is an organizad state which is fully responsible for the families of the killed troopers. Every kia soldies returned to his family. So there is no way for state to manipulate numbers. More that that Turkey is the only respectful and recognized side of this conflict. Turkey's claims are much more accurate than an armed marginal terrorist organisation, of course. 195.174.42.31 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No Prisoners of War but Criminal

Ocalan and Sakik are listed as POW but they are not POWs because this conflict is not war. Both Ocalan and Sakik and even other captured militants are "captured" and "sentenced" criminals. The link for POW leads to the Prisoner of War page, and Prisoner of War article is not suitable for Ocalan and others' status.

Thanks.

"A prisoner of war (POW) is a person, whether civilian or combatant, who is held in custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict." - Prisoner of war article

Ocalan, Sakik and all the other captured PKK leaders meet that definition. There is BTW no templete for "criminals" or for "captured," we always use POW template in infoboxes of all articles about military conflicts. I suggest you read here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to see what the rules are. Wikipedia cannot take sides with the Turkish regime against the PKK (or with the PKK against the Turkish regime), therefore neutral terms should be used to avoid controversy.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Last Part of the Introduction

It says (in case you are too lazy) : "The conflict is seen by David McDowall as the latest in a series of uprisings in Turkey.[27] PKK is seen[by whom?] as an obstacle in an independent state for Kurds currently in Iraq.[28]"

Shouldn't this be deleted. It's 1. Opinion of ONE (well, two) man 2. Weasel-y 3. Vague 4. Sounds like pushing a political agenda

Korrybean (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Kermanshahi (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

died informations about pkk war is lie is not ture

the informations about turkey pkk conflict is not truee !

min.20.000 turkish soldiers dead and min.5.000 pkk freedom fighters dead


pls look to pkk informations too

turkey informations wrong!

turksih reporter said "we make only lie news about pkk.

i thnik we shoudl add pkks infos too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.178.235 (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You may find Turkish claims unrealistic, however wikipedia has to remain a neutral source and thus it is not for us to remove information we don't agree with, based on our personal opinions. The claims from both sides should be represented in the article. If you can find a source with the PKK claim for the casualties of the conflict, than please provide this and we can add it to the infobox, which currently only includes Turkish claims and independent estimates.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sebahat Tuncel, one of the parliamentarian of BDP (PKK's legal party in Turkish Parliament) states in her speech that 18.000 militants were killed. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/18151157.asp?gid=381 So, we can remove the falsified casualties declared by the terrorist group. Noyan Sipahi (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

be realistic

why not to remain at the old title as turk-kurd conflict - there are at least five or more organizations on the opposing side on the table -referring to the persons above - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillis (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) or should not it be called the kurdish question really? Sillis (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone should request an article move one of these days.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

hisbollah is not with pkk! and dead fighters-info is wrong

hisbollah was never with pkk..hisbollah was with turkish state against pkk and the dead fighters of pkk ,this is wrong..all infos are from turk.lying state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.136.175 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Hizbullah I agree and thus put Hizbullah into past cooperation with Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.156.36 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah is another Kurdish seperatist organization against the Turkish state. Unlike PKK, they just say "No Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan, but Islamic Kurdistan". That's the only thing they're seperated about. Stop posting and adding one-sided baseless information, and be polite. Nozdref (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that Hizbullah is on the PKK-side of the Turkey-PKK conflict you might want to edit the Hizbullah wikipedia entry as well. For there it is stated that: "In the early 1990s the organization became a direct threat to the already rising Kurdish separatist movement. The Kurdish Islamist group (of Sunni thought) began as an oppositional force against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), though later they have targeted both the PKK and people with low morals (people who drank alcohol, wore mini-skirts etc.)" "On 17 January 2011 Arif Doğan, a retired colonel in the Turkish army who also claims to be a founder of JİTEM, while testifying in court in the Ergenekon case, declared that he set up Hezbollah as a contra group to force to fight and kill militants of the PKK." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.137.133 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying Hezbollah is with the PKK. What I'm saying is they also are a terrorist group that is against Turkey, and is for a so-called "free Kurdistan". PKK just say "Marxist Kurdistan", and Hezbollah say "Islamic Kurdistan". Both want free Kurdistan, but their ideologies in this cause are different so this cause rivalry and conflict between them. Different ideologies, but their motto are the same: "Free Kurdistan" Nozdref (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. If Hizbullah is not with the PKK it should not be listed as being with the PKK in the conflict between Turkey and PKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.60.166 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding to the claim that Hezbollah was on Turkish side. Here's a quote from the article: "The period after the capture of Öcalan was used by the Turkish government to launch major crackdown operations against the Kurdish Hizbullah, arresting 3,300 Hizbullah members in 2000, compared to 130 in 1998, and killing the group's leader Hüseyin Velioğlu on January 13, 2000.". There are three inline sources cited. So it's not logical to put them to Turkish side as a belligerent. Nozdref (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid some of you may be slightly confused about wikipedia infoboxes. Yes, Hizbullah and PKK are not allies, however Hizbullah is a Kurdish insurgent group which fights the Turkish regime. Therefore PKK and Hizbullah are listed together in the same side of the infobox, the insurgent side. This same standard is applied all over wikipedia, for instance in the Second intifada article, Hamas and Fatah are listed on the same side of the infobox as insurgent groups fighting Israel, despite being enemies and fighting each other. In the Iraq War article Shi'a groups like the Mahdi Army, Ba'athist groups and Sunni Islamist groups like al-Qaeda are listed on the same side of the infobox as insurgents fighting US, although all these groups have viciously fought each other aswell. In the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict and the articles related to it, the PUK and KDP are listed at the same side, as Kurdish insurgents, although fighting each other. Kermanshahi (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well explained Kermanshahi. Cheers. Nozdref (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (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) 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Şemdin Sakık

According to several reliable sources, Şemdin Sakık surrendered to the Kurdistan Democratic Party. But User:Kermanshahi removed this sourced information with Kurdish nationalistic wording such as "Turkish military junta". But this is not Turkish source. Kermanshahi must stop his ethnocentric POV pushing edits and removal actions. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He was captured, so  (POW) template is applicable. You guys removed this captured symbol from the entire ifnobox due to simple anti-Kurdish grudge (and an instistance to call them terrorists and therefore refusing to have the POW sign applied to them, although it is applied in all other articles to insurgent commanders regardless which dictator calls them terrorists), which meant no-one could see which commanders were captured and which ones were not, which means this is vandalism, done on purpose to make this article worse and with less information on it, simply to push biased views. Completely unacceptable! If you want to add the surrandered symbol to Şemdin Sakık only, than we can talk about it. But that is not what you did, you vandalised the article in general just to push your extreme views. And no I am not a Kurdish natioanlist, I removed biased edits by pro-PKK editors just a short while ago to this article. What I am trying to do is keep this article neutral and therefore I cannot allow you or anyone else to apply different standards to Kurds simply based on race. Kermanshahi (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"prisoner of war" + "Şemdin Sakık" 0 result.

Şemdin Sakık surrendered to KDP in March 1998, and captured by the Turkish special forces inside Iraqi Kurdistan, in April 13, 1998. (Nader Entessar, Kurdish politics in the Middle East, p. 145.) Takabeg (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well he was captured by Turkish troops, he did not give himself up to them. So therefore POW is more applicable than surrandered.Kermanshahi (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, after so many years of Turkish propaganda this may come as a major shock to you, and I understand that. So, I hate to break it to you, but this is a war, and Semdin Sakik is a prisoner captured in that war. Can you put 2 and 2 together? See, I know your dictators like to call Kurds terrorists, and Kurdish nationalists would say otherwise, but no matter what petty names you want to give anyone or group, it doesn't change this simple fact: this is a war, he was captured that war. We don't have seperate templates on wikipedia for commanders of countries' armies and commanders of insurgents' militia. So, it's a sad day for you my friend, but the POV template will be re-added until you bring up a better argument.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kermanshahi, please stop thinking me as a Turk, think me as an Eskimo. I am asking you to cite reliable sources calling Öcalan, Sakık, Doğan and Gümüş as POWs, because we Eskimos do not know much about that. Also, many sources disagree the Hizbullah was with PKK, calling Hizbullah Anti-PKK, so please add reliable sources there, so my Eskimo friends can verify the data we have here. Sincerely, an Eskimo. Khutuck (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Eskimo, as for Kurdish Hezbollah thing, check above. He explained it very well and clear. Nozdref (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Khutuck, please read this: Template:POW it says "This template is used to indicate commanders who were captured or surrendered in Infobox Military Conflict." So it is perfectly applicable in this situation.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a note for those who did not know about POW templates, and can think it as a POV pushing. Please do not remove, so other Eskimos can understand too. Khutuck (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mazlum Doğan

Mazlum Doğan was arrested on September 30, 1979, before the beginning of the armed conflict. He was not a commander, but a publisher. (Mazlum Doğan' ın tutuklanması) Takabeg (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict started in 1978.Kermanshahi (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources ? Takabeg (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in the infobox and the article itself. We could remove Mazlum Dogan, though, simply because he was not that important and there are already many PKK commanders in the infobox.Kermanshahi (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We must hold separate Haki Karer, Mazlum Doğan, Kemal Pir, Hayri Durmuş etc. Takabeg (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurds do exist and Ataturk is not god. No, we do not need to mess up the infobox even more just because of your bias.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ataturk ? Nobody put Ataturk into infobox. Takabeg (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But you worship this mass-murderer and his racism and that's the whole problem here.Kermanshahi (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hizbullah

Hizbullah didn't take side with PKK. Hizbullah and the PKK signed a cooperation protocol in March 1993 to end attacks against each other. (A, B). In short, Hizbullah was a third party. Takabeg (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't. And I'll tell you why, again. In the infobox on wikipedia we normally put all insurgents on one side of the table, regardless if they have also fought against each other. Please check out Iraq War, Second Intifada, Somalia War, ect. - we are not making exceptions simply for your country, sorry, that is POV. That they are on the right side of the infobox does not mean that they are allies of the PKK, simply that they are a Kurdish insurgent group and enemies of the Turkish state. What we can do however is add in the notes section of the infobox that Hizbullah has also fought the PKK and that there have been alleged links with the deep state.Kermanshahi (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that your approach is POV-pushing without sources. What does mean "your country" ? Turkey is not my country. I recommend you to avoid ethnocentric approach. Takabeg (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

YEs, Turkey is your country, no need to deny it for this simple argument. I don't push POV without sources, you do that. I keep neutrality to this article, something Kemalists have been trying to vandalise for years. Oh and you know what I don't identify as a reliable source? Anything released by the Kemalist regime, those are all straight lies. Still we use them in the article, because I won't let the article be POV against Turks. You want the article to the POV against Kurds, though, that's our problem...Kermanshahi (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why against Kurds ? Takabeg (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Al Qaeda and Baathist Party, with all ideological differences, were in fact allies against the USA. They did not attack each other until the "Awakening" was started. But after that Iraqi Sunnis kicked off Al Qaeda from their cities. In PKK-Turkey there is not a single day in which PKK and Hizbullah joined forces against security forces. Kavas (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Takabeg's first source proves you wrong on your statement on Hezbollah-PKK. Nozdref (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the infobox a bit more with some more evidence. Hizbullah is on Kurdish insurgent side but also added Hizbullah as "past cooperation against PKK". That'd sound more neutral. Please don't remove it. Nozdref (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So until 1993, PKK was enemy of both Hizbullah and the government. Then after 1993 PKK and Hizbullah signed a peace treaty and became neutrals. After 2003, Hizbullah became a demilitarized group. [1] Kavas (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
What is that hard to understand? Look, this article is about Kurdish insurgency and its struggle against Turkish state, Hezbollah is a Kurdish insurgent group, they just is in favour of Kurdish Islamic state therefore it should be shown as belligerent in Kurdish insurgent side, with a sidenote stating that they've also clashed with PKK because of ideological differences for creation of Kurdish state. Not to mention its leaders were killed by Turkish forces. Adding it in "Past cooperation against PKK" is also OK. If you've read at least Kermenshahi's basic example on Second Intifada you'd also see what we mean. Nozdref (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, Kavas this isn't actualy true, the different Iraqi insurgent groups were at war with each other from the start, both as secterian conflict and conflict between differnt groups of same sect, but all insurgents are listed on one side.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaffar Okkan

Was Gaffar Okkan killed in action ? As long as I know, he was assassinated. Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Öcalan prisoner of war? He is just a prisoner :) That template is full of errors. --Khutuck (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many killings of commanders which can be called assasinations. On wiki we add the KIA template to show they were killed by their enemy.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaffar Okkan was not a commander. Takabeg (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing edits

I reverted these POV pushing edits. I cannot find any criteria when user chose names of individuals. They were chosen only by users POV. Especially in Turkey, top of organizations are frequently changed. So we'd better use the lists of tops, such as Presidency, Prime Ministry, General Staff, Army, Air Force etc.. Takabeg (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

These are not POV pushing edits and no, the way things are right now there is no need to remove all Turkish commanders from the infobox.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC) And I was merely cleaning up the infobox which you had made into such a mess in your hurry to push Kemalist POV.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What's Kemalist POV ? Takabeg (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are a Kemalist and your edits are POV. Does that clear it for you?Kermanshahi (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Name change

This article used to be called the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (just like Iraqi-Kurdish conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict) however as always, Turkey must be held to different standards as other countries and the name was attacked by Kemalists which forced a name change on the article. The problem is, the current name is simly untrue, incorrect. The PKK is not the only Kurdish insurgent group active, therefore we need a name change. So anyone got suggestions for a name that is not controversial, but also not inaccurate? Becaue a name change is a must. Kermanshahi (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personaly I think Kurdish Conflict in Turkey is a good name. But can all the Ataturk-lovers agree to it?Kermanshahi (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You chose them only by your own POV. So your edits are POV pushing. It's very clear. Takabeg (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That a certain individual has been a commander of the Turkish military of the PKK is not my POV, it is a fact. The name of this article however is incorrect and proven to be incorrect by the mere fact that there are other Kurdish insurgent groups. If you are unwilling to contribute constructively, I will eventualy change the name without your consent, however I am giving your side the oppurtunity to speak on this issue beforehand in the hope to prevent further edit warring and vandalism, but I see now that you are not interested in doing this, only attacking people which don't worship Ataturk. Well guess what? I believe in Allah not Ataturk and will not allow your POV to hurt the article!Kermanshahi (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are Ataturk-lovers ? You also claimed Stopping pro-regime editor from destroying the infobox (which BTW does not portray any POVs). Who are pro-regime editor? And you wrote Forgot to re-add that note the Kemalists demand is added, because ofcourse we must hold Turkey to different standards than any other country... but if it prevents further vandalism than I'm OK with it). Who are Kemalists ? Don't use such POV pushing edits and wording, and avoid your prejudice toward those who try to stop your propagandic approach. Takabeg (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Who? That'll mainly be you. And maybe you should avoid your anti-Kurdish prejudice which has been stamped into your head by Turkish propagandists, rather than critisize me for it.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this article was nPOV when you came here, it is me trying to stop your propagandist approach from turning this article into a love-fest for Ataturk and military junta, full of hatefull anti-Kurdish bias. Can't have it.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kermanshahi: I'm not against Kurds. But I oppose to Kurdish nationalistic edits in Wikipedia. I oppose to Turkish nationalistic edits in Wikipedia in the same way. Both Turkish nationalist and Kurdish nationalist cannot understand neutrality. You can read personal attacks against me by User:Böri. He claims that I should be an anti-Turkist (Türk karşıtı). You claim that I should be an anti-Kurdist. This is approach of extremists. That's all. Takabeg (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg was called Armenian, Kurdish, Jewish, Palestinean, Greek, Turkish, Arabic and Japanese nationalist so far in both English and Turkish wikis, which suggests a bit of neutrality in my opinion :P --Khutuck (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
+ Chinese, westernist (Batıcı). Takabeg (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This article covers the conflict between Turkey, PKK and PKK-related groups such as KCK, TAK and PJAK. It is not about any non-existent ethnical civil war between Turks and Kurds. This article is not about the so-called "Kurdish problem" or "Eastern problem". This article is about Turkey vs PKK, that is all. Stop trying to push your point of view. Also, do not forget Wikipedia's WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies applies to all pages and all discussions.--Khutuck (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about Turky and PKK, it is about Turkey and Kurdish groups, one of which is the PKK. Not nearly all Kurdish groups are PKK-related, the problem is that the Kemalist regime labels every Kurd which does not deny his identity as PKK - this is Turkish regime POV which you are pushing again. But I am not in Turkey, so I do not need to live with you censorship. The current name is incorrect and not commonly used (or used at all) in the media, the only reason the article is called like this is because some Ataturk lovers have been pushing their anti-Kurdish POV on the article. The Kemalist ideology claims Kurds do not exist and everyone in Turkey is a Turk, the Turkish consitution denies existance of Kurds and therefore the regime labels all Kurds which are against them as PKK, this is not true in reality. Now for instance TAK is not PKK related at all, this is conspiracy theory pushed by Turkish regime to make Kurds look bad. This incorrect name is also the reason many of you have attacked Hizbullah's inclusion in the infobox which should not be any problem. The name must change, the fact that you refuse to cooperate only proves the lack of goodwill here and shows that your only intentions are to promote Kemalist propaganda.Kermanshahi (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And yes Khutuck, this article is about the Kurdish problem, that's why it was called Turkish-Kurdish conflict when it was made - that's why it discusses other groups, it discusses the Serhildan, the BDP, ect. only the name is incorrect. And look, we can't go and make a seperate article about the Turkish conflict with the PKK and one about Turkish conflict with all Kurdish groups including the PKK. That would be something so ridiculous only Erdgan's private propaganda office could think of it. You're not telling me that you work there, Khutuck, are you?Kermanshahi (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Special teams

User:Kermanshahi claims Police Special Operation Teams are official forces, not paramilitants. But this is paramilitary. (paramilitary + "police forces"). Even Jandarma is considered as paramilitary (global security). I recommend you to stop POV pushing edits and to reference reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jandarma is a paramilitary organization for sure, but I'd like to see sources about Polis Özel Harekat, its article refers PÖH as "special forces", while as my experince PÖH is more like a paramilitary organization. Khutuck (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case paramilitaries refers to militias. As you see it is linked to the article about the Turkish deep-state. But ofcourse you wouldn't understand anything else than "Ataturk is god, Turkey may not be questioned." Yes I fell in your trap, but I am back and am ready to revert every single edit you make 2x a day for the rest of my life if you don't learn to be just a tiny bit reasonable.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

paramilitary is not same with militia.

According to Oxford dictionary, militia

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency:

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

According to Oxford dictionary, paramilitary

organized similarly to a military force:

a member of a paramilitary organization.

Nobody said "Ataturk is god, Turkey may not be questioned." You have to cast away political and ethnocentric prejudices as soon as possible.

Takabeg (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to the article deep state is not appropriate. In the list, only Counter-Guerrilla, amd Ergenekon can be considered as deep state. And I cannot find any source for proving that Grey Wolf (Idealist Youth) participated in this conflict as organization. Takabeg (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW if you demand sources are reliable than I demand not a single Turkish source be used in this entire article. Because see, Turkish sources are not reliable they are what we call propaganda because journalists which don't write what Erdogan wants go to jail. But I guess you are not at freedom to debate this, or do you live outside Turkey?Kermanshahi (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements of both Turkish government/governmental organization and Kurdish nationalist organizations are not reliable. But both Turkish and Kurdish sources can be used. If you doubt some sources you can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have freedom to debate on Erdoğan. Turkish citizens also have this freedom. You have to cast away political and ethnocentric prejudices as soon as possible. Takabeg (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The paramilitary units (grey wolf, ultranationalist groups) were an involved party. Does it need a source?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We need sources to prove Grey Wolf is an ultranationalist organization, because we can see the article Grey Wolf. It's enough. However, we need to sources to prove they are "paramilitary". Why did you remove many {{citation needed}} tags ?Takabeg (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay feel free to revert. I will find sources for that information. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We also need reliable sources that denotes Gray Wolves fought against PKK. They are completely against PKK, but they took no organised action as I know. Also, we need solid sources for Turkish Revenge Brigade and Ergenekon, as there were only allegations about their actions, but I did not see any reliable sources about them so far. --Khutuck (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Grey Wolves article before you come around with your propaganda. "The paramilitary wing of the Grey Wolves have been utilized by the Turkish intelligence services to assassinate PKK leaders" - and it also says they are involved with the Counter-Guerrilla. As for the Turkish Revenge Brigades article it says this: "The Turkish Revenge Brigade (Turkish: Türk İntikam Tugayı, TİT) is an ultra-nationalist militant organisation that has used violence against those who are perceived to be insulting Turkey.[1][2] In the 1970s, TİT gained notoriety during political clashes and are believed to be responsible for over one thousand deaths during this period. After the military coup of 1980, most of its members were arrested but later released and assisted Turkish military intelligence in operations against Kurdish militants.[3]" - but ofcourse, you don't care about these articles or about what organisations are, all you care about is doing Erdo's dirty work here. Infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, it's not supposed to be full of citations and 300-word essays by you and your buddies about the Kemalist take on things. If someone is unsure about the GW or the TIT, they van just click on the article and see for themselfes the facts. But no, you insist on propaganda. Can't have it...Kermanshahi (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop calling my every message and every contribution as "Kemalist propoganda". You may be hating Atatürk and Turkey, it is your opinion, I do not care about that. But I am trying to contribute here, and you are trying to annoy me, which I believe is the very definition of trolling. Please stop this, be reasonable and less agressive. You may be Kurdish, I may be Turkish, but we are all on the same side here, we are trying to give free information to everyone. Please assume my good faith and criticise constructively. --Khutuck (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
@Kermanshahi: We don't discuss on Counter-Guerrilla. Please don't switch the focus of discussion. Takabeg (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see Takabeg in has vandalised the article again, trying to remove deep-state, because he does not want crimes of the kemalists exposed. But see, this is yet another thing you do not understand: all official security forces are already part of combatant "Turkey," we do not need to list seperately this special police squads and the army and the air force and bla, bla, bla, the section "paramilitaries" as in all such conflicts, refers to the right-wing militia', while the left-wing militia call themsels guerillas. This is only for unofficial groups, militant groups, which fought against the PKK during this conflict. But you don't even care to listen or to understand, you come fresh out of Ataturk-brainwash camp and see an article that is neutral and objective, go beserk about how this doesn't fit into this fake world the Kemalists planted into your mind, and then you go around deleting everything madly. Give it up, boy, I'm not letting you destroy this article and I will continue to revert your attacks until the day that I day, or until you give it up and start a reasonable discussion.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this article still has to be re-named, the fact you will not even talk about that proves just how much of a WP:TROLL you are and how there can be no question of good faith in this case.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And Khutuck, your boy started with the personal attacks, he opened this disucssion with "But User:Kermanshahi removed this sourced information with Kurdish nationalistic wording such as "Turkish military junta". But this is not Turkish source. Kermanshahi must stop his ethnocentric POV pushing edits and removal actions." and therefore is responsible for all following accusations by any party in this editing conflict. And no, I'm not on your side, atleast not as long as you guys try to turn this article into a propaganda outlet for Turkish dictators.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of your prejudiced fanaticism. Who will provide reliable sources for Grey Wolves, Ergenekon (organization), Turkish Revenge Brigade etc... ? Takabeg (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Taka I have given you the chance to negotiate and be resonabe. I have even left numerous of your attacks tot he infobox out good will (note I am not reverting it back to how it was before). However you just don't stop, you keep attacking, attacking and don't want to discuss anything. When I wanted to make a change to the article name, I reached out to you guys to discuss this as reasonable human beings, you blatantly refused (leading to the accuracy of wikipedia suffering). But when you are trying to make changes, you do not consult with anyone you just try push it through. Can't have it!Kermanshahi (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Attack ? If you have no intention to provide sources, we have to remove unsourced information, at present. Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is important in Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to negotiate these points one by one of what you are doing to the infobox, because it's not sources which are the problem here. Until you start a proper dialouge, what you are doing is attacking the article. Because you are not making it better, either. Now I reached out to you and I told you, let's discuss every point one by one and come to an agreement but you don't want to do this, you want to be totally unchecked because you are attacking the article. Come to your senses Takabeg, you want to get something done, let's talk about it.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Grey Wolf

I found some sources for proving that members (including former members) of Grey Wolf (Ülkü Ocakları ) were recruited to the Turkish contra-guerrilla (Kontrgerilla ). However I couldn't find any sources for proving that Grey Wolf (Ülkü Ocakları ) participated in this conflict as an organization. Takabeg (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=release-of-turkish-hizbullah-members-sparks-controversy-over-its-future-strategy-2011-01-09
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdish–Turkish_conflict/Archive_1&oldid=1136885679"