Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:'''oppose:''' ] 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. ] (]) 16:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
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.
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 calm 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.
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
“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.
Misplaced Pages: 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)
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)
Removal of "Communalism" in ideology list
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)
Misplaced Pages bias
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)
Terrorist label "controversial"
"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?
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)
