Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties caused by PKK

Civilian casualties caused by PKK

POV content fork Soman 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nom. and for reasons that I have already mentioned on the articles talkpage. Keep but rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict -- Karl Meier 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but Rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict as per article's talk~~ -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: do we have an article covering terrorism in Turkey? To the extent these incidents are verified and the PKK has claimed responsibility or is widely presumed to have done it, these should not be deleted. The article may be a POV fork, but the content may still be salvageable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Not sure about terrorism in Turkey but as you said it is indeed notable, should be kept but in a less POVed article such as mentioned above -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. I have also removed the individual teachers' biographies from this article, as Wikipedia is not a memorial. Vizjim 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is misleading because if there was one, the whole country would have been ablaze. PKK is definable as an organization. Its actions are definable. There are other illegal (not to say terrorist) Kurdish movements aside from PKK, such as the Kurdish-Hizbullah. And there are Kurds in all levels of Turkish society, including the army. Why were some teachers a target for the PKK by the way? (the remark by User: Karl Meier attracted my attention). P.S. We can have a separate article treating specifically ex. Excesses by security forces. --Cretanforever 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to think of it.. There are a lot of Iranian casualities out of the conflicts caused by PKK and the rest too, I am not sure if we are ought to include them all in one article or not -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the official site of PKK talks about "teachers were eliminated because they were destroying the kurdish culture"... or something along that line... --Cat out 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specific pattern of terrorist acts pursued by a specific group is certainly notable. Killing teachers was a specific pattern for the PKK. There has been up to a million Iranian casualties in Iran-Iraq War, and among those casualties, those who have been killed by use of chemical substances by Iraq's Baath regime are certainly notable in the sense of a wiki article. --Cretanforever 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: article is well referenced. POV problems, if any, can be solved. 1652186 18:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This article should also have the Kurdish POV. —Khoikhoi 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename per Karl Meier, although Casulaties of the conflict in Turkish Kurdistan or Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey would work too. It is imperative that the article describe killings by both Turkish Military, PKK and Village guards. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as per FrancisTyers--Aldux 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice: rename and npovise Second choice: delete. The article currently serves only as a pov fork. This should be something like Timeline of PKK's activities or something along that line. Something like a Timeline of Kurdish-Turkish conflict would be inaproporate as I believe this article is exclusively about the PKK. Actualy, I do not see why we cant have both. :) --Cat out 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the information in the article are verified and they are about specific actions of PKK. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict would not work because the article is not about Kurds but PKK and PKK is not the only representative of Kurds. --Hattusili 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict or something very much like it. --Moby 10:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but NO rename. --Gokhan 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Fad (ix) 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict and it should include the Kurdish POV. Ozgur Gerilla 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I dont agree with a renaming of the article. The civilian casualties caused by the PKK refers to a very specific and extreme part of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, something which deserves its own topic. We have to remember that the violence instituted by the PKK is not supported by the majority of Kurds, therefore it would be misleading to rename it the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. It would be akin to renaming Al-Qaeda articles the American-Islamic conflict. I feel many people here dont understand this, because they think the PKK represents all Kurds, and therefore is part of a greater Turkish-Kurdish conflict, when in fact is the very most extreme end of it. It is a kind of western prejudice which Wikipedia always suffers from. --A.Garnet 13:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't quite understand here, how can you know that the PKK is the sole responsable of the casulties or the devastation, when in the process there has been over two million people relocated by the Turkish army and over 3000 villages destroyed. I don't quite understand what qualify really as Civilian casulties caused by the PKK or if such a term is even encyclopedic. What do village gards qualify as, what the Turkish army posted unites on the Easts qualify as? Fad (ix) 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they were solely responsible for casualties of devastation, this is your assumption. Rather i have said that targetting civilians is a specific objective of the PKK for tactical and politcal reasons, this is notable in itself. --A.Garnet 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got statistical evidence that the majority of the Kurds don't support PKK? because I believe the existence of PKK today is the proof that the majority of Kurds supports PKK. Ozgur Gerilla 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozgur, the existence of the PKK doesnt prove prove popular support, just like the existence of Al-Qaeda is condemned by the majority of Muslims. The fact is the PKK was not a popular uprising, but a rural insurgency, fought in the mountains. If we had armed Kurds roamming Kurdish citys then we would have a truly Turkish-Kurdish conflict, but this has never been the case. Renaming the article Turkish-Kurdish conflict signifies a popular uprising, this is my gripe. --A.Garnet 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garnet, I don't think PKK is condemned by the majority of the Kurds and its existence does tell us something. You may be correct with the conflict definition but what ever the case it is notable that the Turkish military has killed ordinary Kurds and just because it is an independent country it shouldn't mean that we cannot mention the casualities of the country's Armed Forces. Ozgur Gerilla 01:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a very good point. Also that the casualities caused by PKK are not limited to the Turks but to Iranian as well so I guess rename could be problematic -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename as per above. --ManiF 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename it in Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict --Hectorian 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]