Talk:Pınarcık massacre

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

Background information is completely void of any citations and makes big claims, not sure how it was allowed to be added without any backup or context[edit]

Stop adding something that is not properly sourced and could be fictional.

Also the Aftermath section tells two sides to the story, but the main header points to the PKK while in reality there have already been other cases where the Turkish side has killed Kurdish villagers and blamed it on the PKK. In 1993, six years after the Pınarcık massacre nine members of a Kurdish family, Mehmet Ogut, his pregnant wife and seven of his children were burned to death in a village near Mus. The blame was originally put on the PKK and for twenty years the case was closed concluded as being a massacre committed by the PKK. The case went to court in 2014 and ended with life imprisonment for three gendarme officers, a member of the special forces and nine soldiers. Source

We literally have a confession that is being dismissed and turkish user here is calling him mentally unstable just because he confessed. Belge's article could have missed the confession or just taken account of official accounts, it's not a shock for such things to happen, nothing to state that she addresses the confession and decides to dismiss it, it's simply not right to overshadow evidence, such as turkey framing the PKK and a turkish source that was there claiming the turkish side did it. --TataofTata (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

turkish propagand[edit]

Why people, mostly turks are doing here turkish propagands??? --Alsace38 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serxwebun[edit]

Serxwebun is not the PKK's official media and whatever it writes, it's their opinion. The PKK has not taken responsibility and denied it several times. The government has accused the PKK but their former special forces admitted it and the government has done massacres like this before a numerous of times. Despite claims of both sides, the case is still open and not solved yet.Ferakp (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great wealth of WP:RS, one of which is in the article, that confirms that Serxwebûn is a PKK publication. I will, for the benefit of all and for future reference, list them here. This is going to be a long text, apologies on that.

  • Belge, Ceren (2016). "Civilian victimization and the politics of information in the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey". World Politics. 67 (2): 279.: "This article is based on original research, including data on internal displacement i compiled from government and activist sources and on reports of PKK violence from 1982 until 1987 in the PKK's monthly publication Serxwebûn."
  • [1]: "The first issue of the PKK's publication Serxwebûn after Ocalan's capture confirmed the new leadership structure."
  • [2]: "Serxwebûn (Indpendence) - monthly PKK ideological paper"
  • German Intelligence Service: "PKK-Zeitung Serxwebûn" (PKK newspaper Serxwebûn)
  • Casier, Marlies; Jongerden, Joost; Walker, Nic (2011). "Fruitless attempts? The Kurdish initiative and containment of the Kurdish movement in Turkey". New Perspectives on Turkey. 44: 115.: "It was this "democratic triangle" project which implied that political and ideological struggles to be given priority over armed conflict, developments confirmed in 2009 through one of the main PKK militant-activist magazines Serxwebun." (This journal has been called "The leading international social science journal on Turkey" by the LSE European Institute. ([3])
  • This source, already in the article, is clear on its nature: "Serxwebun, the monthly periodical of the central committee of the PKK"

I could give many more sources but I would say that this is beyond all reasonable dispute at this point. I am simply astonished that despite the last source being in the article, you can say that the Serxwebun is unaffiliated with the PKK. The onus is now on you, Ferakp, if you wish to claim that Serxwebun is not PKK's official voice, to counter these with sources as reliable and numerous (I would certainly like to see some peer-reviewed publications). I will take any attempt to say that Serxwebun's article does not constitute the PKK point of view as disruptive.

Having established that, let's have the quote from Serxwebun: "Haziran ayı içinde, Türk sömürgeciliğine karşı ARGK birliklerinin üst üste gelişen eylemleri yükseldi. Önce Ceylanpınar Üretme Çiftliği'nde talanın önlenmesine yönelik sabotaj [...] en son olarak 21 Haziran'da Ömerli'nin Pınarcık köyünde köy korucularına karşı gerçekleştirilen soylu eylem, bir dizi eylemin doruğu oldu." Translation: "In the month of June, consecutive actions of the ARGK units rose against Turkish colonialism. Firstly, the sabotage at the Ceylanpınar Farm to prevent looting [...] and lastly, on 21 June, the noble action against village guards in the Pınarcık village of Ömerli, was the pinnacle of a series of actions." Note that ARGK are PKK militant units.

I sadly observe that you have removed the Belge article, a peer-reviewed article in a journal of the Princeton University Press, and, I must add, a very well-researched and unbiased account of human rights violations by both sides (primarily the Turkish state), which clearly states "for instance, in June 1987, the PKK killed thirty villagers in Pınarcık, a village near mardin, for enlisting in this progovernment Kurdish militia. PKK fighters also hanged village guards from trees, stuffing their mouths with money, to deter other villagers from joining the militia.21 the names of village guards and other informants killed by the PKK were published in Serxwebûn." This was further supported by Marcus' source that is equally clear on PKK responsibility; that book was published by New York University Press. I must also note that Belge's article was published in 2016, meaning that her conclusion regarding the Pınarcık massacre was with the full knowledge of the JİTEM-related "confession". Per WP:RS, these academic sources must take precedence over others; the two you have added are an opinion piece from T24 and an article by Bianet that reports Çarkın's statements, and adds the commentary of a journalist that the incidents in the southeast must be discussed; that is juxtaposed with another journalist calling Çarkın "mentally unstable". These sources are of a much lower calibre than the academic sources I mention, and do not by any means prove that the case is open. I will thus revert your edits and further contextualise Çarkın's statements.

For reference, here is the message I sent to Ferakp regarding this matter.

--GGT (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

″I would say that this is beyond all reasonable dispute at this point″ I have had a look at your list of references and I would disagree. A book referencing to another book's label of them, that I couldn't verify, I then tried to search deeper to find something concrete on the others and again it's labels, assumptions and prejudice. Rather the only thing that is without a doubt is that Serxwebun (http://serxwebun.org/) is a pro-PKK media outlet. The PKK have their own mouthpiece like their website or from interviews with their leaders where they make statements or take responsibility of their acts. So this is different than the usual and regarding the massacre I believe that the Serxwebun writers at the time assuming it was a PKK operation against Turkish created village guards, without really knowing or checking went ahead and wrote it.
The argument was not that Serxwebun is unaffiliated, at least not in the way it is being made out to be, you have changed the original point that was made. They are not PKK's official media, all the sources seem to just brand them this. For example where can I find actual anything on this "the monthly periodical of the central committee of the PKK" It seems completely made up.. I think that is on you to prove and so far it's one claim backed by another claim for all we know sourced by the Turks down the line. For example your 3rd "reference" is ""Serxwebûn (Indpendence) - monthly PKK ideological paper"" - a monthly PKK ideological paper, ok, however it does NOT say a PKK published monthly ideological paper or official PKK ideological paper.. Again next one "PKK-Zeitung Serxwebûn" (PKK newspaper Serxwebûn) - it does not say PPK's newspaper, it rather reads as a PKK newspaper. Not a single source that confirms from the PKK or on behalf of the PKK and of course not from those who are being held by Turkey or in dispute with the PKK.
Regarding Belge's article, this is a different section we should be using, but how on earth does one supposedly speak about Pınarcık massacre and then not even make a single comment on the confession. You say it's well researched and unbiased, but missing this raises questions. As for yourself, using quotes for "confession" are you in doubt? You make it seem like this is a far fetched story, similar to the pro-turkish narrative that he's suddenly mentally unfit, "delusional" and "untrustworthy". This has nothing to do with being in middle of a scandal and spilling the details to send a message to those that can make him immune from the charges he's involved in, right? Definitely never happened before! His story is not far fetched when you research more into the false flags turkey has committed and what his unit was up to during the 90's. The very scandal he was involved in was targeting civilians. TataofTata (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You just don't like what Serxwebun has to say about the massacre, so Serxwebun is totally unrelated to the PKK now. Well, Aliza Marcus, the author of Blood and Belief and one of the most authoritative sources, would disagree with you, and so would anyone with the barest capability of reading the periodical. I added the quote to the article for your benefit (she explicitly makes this connection in multiple places in her book), and I somehow trust Aliza Marcus more than I trust your word. It is undisputable that Serxwebun is an official publication of the PKK, I could provide multiple other secondary sources, but I would be wasting my time.

I also removed en masse the irrelevant material about other Turkish operations that you added to the article. The Turkish state may have committed other stuff elsewhere, the place to discuss those is in the article on that. The sources make no explicit connection between those and Pınarcık, so yours is nothing more than a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH to attempt to whitewash the PKK out of this massacre.

And regarding Çarkın's words, well, we write this encyclopaedia based on secondary, academic sources. Marcus and Belge clearly call this a PKK massacre. The fact that they have omitted Çarkın's "confessions" speaks for itself: this self-conflicting man's account is not taken seriously in the reliable sources that write about this. If secondary sources don't give it weight, then we in Wikipedia won't. I don't care how sensible it sounds, you can go WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS elsewhere.

--GGT (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you basically reverted my changes that made the article more neutral and put it back to the state it was from which a banned user had left it at, which was a very pro-turkey narrative. I never removed or dismissed Serxwebun argument. In fact Ayhan Çarkın's statements are essentially buried within the content when it should obviously be higher up. In 2016 you said you had more sources or could prove your claim regarding confirming Serxwebun being an "official publication of the PKK", but again your excuse is presented and we should trust you. "Blood and Belief" was released in 2007 and Ayhan Çarkın confession was in 2011. Another one of your mispresenting the facts which leads me to believe everything you've said needs to be triple checked and some may be out of context quotes and simply your false-interpretations.
You've ignored everything I said, which you really should have simply responded with (if you were looking at this in a more neutral way), you seem to think you have higher authority than me to simply just remove what I have done. Belge's article completely not mentioning the confession should raise questions, but in fact you coin that as some kind of proof and claim it's well researched, how does something be well researched when it does not talk about something so reflating the topic (is something I would ask if I had an open mind about this) but on a purely factual point I wouldn't class nothing as being something.
However what I think is actually happening here you're portraying her article as some kind of research on Pınarcık massacre, when Pınarcık is literally mentioned only once and in fact it's just referenced to lead to something else being her primary discussion. If what you said had weight and it was well researched the confession should have been addressed and stated as being unreliable, as you assume she thinks.
I think it is you who just don't like it. You don't like what Ayhan Çarkın has to say. It's all your opinions regarding him, you provided no sources to dismiss him and if you do provide sources no doubt it will be a pro Turkish point of view. You are basically dismissing an ex-special forces officer who stated the perpetrators were Turkish JİTEM (a clandestine wing with the turkish military committing illegal activities) when he started getting in trouble regarding the Susurluk scandal. This is the very angle Turkish state sponsored media has been portraying him as. While ultimately It isn't something hard to believe or a shock for Turkey to be accused of this, there is a long list of false flag cases (which you are now voting to remove the page), so it definitely isn't some kind of unimaginable idea, turkish military has a history of commiting these acts and blaming it on the PKK.
You are being very biased and the way the page is being presented, with the confession placed very low on the page shows what you want to achieve.TataofTata (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Serxwebun was established in the foundation congress of the PKK in 1978 and Mazlum Dogan, one of the founders of the PKK was its Editor in Chief. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here would be a source for such claim. It is from JSTOR, which is accessible over the Wikipedia library.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paradise Chronicle. So Mazlum Dogan commits suicide in a Turkish prison in 1982 (so we know he was not the chief editor at the time) and what Serxwebun magazine writes in 1987 on the incident looks more like reporting and championing than the PKK taking responsibility. We don't use Turkish state sponsored or leaning media outlets as official statements by the Turkish state even though we know they are closely related and have connections. The whole purpose of a false flag is to portray the acts to be committed by the enemy, and like I said the writers at the time assuming PKK guerrilla's can only attack a village controlled by state sponsored village guards puts two and two together. PKK guerrilla's communication even between each unit was limited and especially during the 80's. As I mentioned, this isn't some kind of far fetched theory, the Turkish JİTEM have a long history of these kind of actions.
What he is basically trying to do is set Serxwebun's story in stone and put a lot of weight on it then brand Ayhan Çarkın and his statements as being a mad man and unreliable, a very pro-turkish point of view. While ironically the scandals and other incidents the guy has been involved is obviously related and they consider reliable while this isn't?
He writes at the very top that this was committed "by ARGK units of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)" which makes Ayhan Çarkın's confession contradictory and now essentially dismissing it. Putting it all the way at the bottom, he then singles out a comment made, while other comments are in the "aftermath" section. The neutrality of the article is completely broken. I thought my edit was more balanced and more clearer. The confessions is a worthy revelation and Serxwebun reporting shouldn't necessarily take president or be 100% conclusion, which ironically he is trying to do here.
Like I mentioned, he is voting to get the article I linked above removed while each case is literally the definition of a false flag, but here he wants to take the source Serxwebun word as 100%. Ironic. TataofTata (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TataofTata doubted the Serxwebun was from the PKK. I replied to that. To the article. The numbers of the casualties differ from the lead and the body. In the lead they number 24 + 8 and in the body 30, both times the same source and additional ones are given. Maybe this could be clarified. I can't access the New York Times (paywall) source nor the Hürryet (dead link), so maybe someone else could fix this. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TataofTata, Blood and Belief is a fairly authoritative work on the Kurdish conflict and calls Serxwebun the PKK's party paper. This could be a misconception, but we would have to have references that say otherwise. Likewise if the PKK has denied responsibility for Pınarcık, do you have any references for this?
I have added a subheading for Ayhan Çarkın's statements since it is distinct from the other reactions and tried to render it in a way that is less editorialized. Let me know if you or GGT still don't find this agreeable. Soapwort (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pınarcık_massacre&oldid=1206273775"