This thread discusses the Content article: Kurdish Conflict

"Kurdistan workers party (PKK)" I do not agree with that. If you refer to a country by Kurdistan, there is no such country. I am not aware of a name to mention the whole region where Kurds live (in Turkey and in neighbor countries)

More importantly, PKK is recognised as a terrorist organization, it is not a workers party. DTP, which was closed down in December 2009, was their party. It was closed down due to their obvious relations with the terrorist organization.

Thank you for your suggestions! With help from our members, we can improve the articles in the database.

Do you have a suggestion for another word then Kurdistan?
Since encyclopedia use this word to describe:

broadly defined geographic region traditionally inhabited mainly by Kurds. It consists of an extensive plateau and mountain area, spread over large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and western Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia. Two of these countries officially recognize internal entities by this name: Iran’s northwestern province of Kordest?n and Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous region.

The Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”) designation refers to an area of Kurdish settlement that roughly includes the mountain systems of the Zagros and the eastern extension of the Taurus. Since ancient times the area has been the home of the Kurds, a people whose ethnic origins are uncertain. For 600 years after the Arab conquest and their conversion to Islam, the Kurds played a recognizable and considerable part in the troubled history of western Asia—but as tribes, individuals, or turbulent groups rather than as a people.

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325241/Kurdistan

So Kurdistan seems like a neutral word to describe the area, without making a judgment about the wish to strive for a state called Kurdistan (I believe the word has different meanings).

I find the sentence: "The Kurdish people are more backward than the rest of Turkey: they have more illiteracy, a lower BBP and a higher enfant death rate," too essentialist. To be honest, such statements, give me the creeps. I agree that the Kurds in Turkey usually have lower education and they are usually seen as more backward, a common stereotype. However, this sentence contributes to the same stereotype. Instead, I think it would be better if you would leave room to examine the causes and consequences (in and for the conflict)of this underdevelopment. Furthermore, the removal of prohibitions on Kurdish language in 1991 is an overstatement. There were (and are) still many prohibitions and obstructions to the use of Kurdish language.

Let me introduce another point of view then. Government may have failed to take real and effective measures to fight low education level and undeveloped economy of the region. But i guess you have no idea about how Kurdish people contribute to that situation. They consist on NOT sending their daughters to PRIMARY school. They get them married at the age of 13. It is strictly against the law to do these. Although there is a decline of such practices as a result of governmental policies and efforts of NGO's, unfortunately we hear these happening from time to time. Government is giving them extra money to get them send their kids to the school. But unfortunately there has been no significant increase in the number of kids (especially girls) sent to the school in that region...

"The Kurdish people are more backward than the rest of Turkey: they have more illiteracy, a lower BBP and a higher enfant death rate,"

That statement gives an idea about the differences between the societies and how the tension rise among them. Tension rise among socities if they have less common points about their lifestyles, and views. I see no blame directed to a nation in that statement. I believe it gives an objective view about the situation.

To resolve conflicts we should first see the picture, and define the situation.Seeing from the both sides' point of views is essential.

"There were (and are) still many prohibitions and obstructions to the use of Kurdish language." About that one, i guess you refer to the absence of schools with Kurdish teaching. Cause there is no governmental or social obstacle against kurdish ppl to speak their language in public. I guess you are Dutch, are you? Is there any school that teaches in Arabic language? or Turkish language? Cause you have big communities from these nations. If you are going to talk about the Turkish language courses in your schools, we have the Kurdish ones in our schools too. And also in Arabic.

How effective and solution oriented are European governments about the immigrant societies' problems in their countries? That is totally open to debate. (I dont say they havent done anything.) I would not like to answer your question with a question, but i keep wondering how you become solution oriented about someone else's country, when you fail to take the same action in your own country. Yes i agree, governments do fail about protecting the rights of citizens from different origins. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. That is true for even the rich and powerful governments like European governments!

Sorry for the late reply. If Kurdistan refers to the regions where Kurds live, the same region should be called, Arabistan, Turkistan, Greater Persia, Assyria and such. Cause that region is shared by many nations!

In the southeastern region of Turkey, Kurdish population is 50 percent of whole population. What are we going to do about the remaining 50 percent? Even if it is not used as an expression of free state Kurdistan, i think that usage is quite new when you compare with the namings of other regions in Anatolia and Middle east (thousands of years of origin). That is a totally new concept. Kurdish people existed on these lands for thousands of years, but along with other nations existence. That's what i mean.

When one of the leaders of their terrorist organization was captured, he gave confessed about the financial and weaponry help from many Western governments. (Also Russia, Iran, Syria and several more). Perhaps that is very unfamiliar to you, since no one has talked about it in your country. I think media does not cover such issues in Europe. It is estimated by Turkish Intelligence Service that there are terrorist camps in many countries of Europe. (I know that estimation does not justify the whole thing, but in Italy police made a raid to several camps, that's a solid example).

Another important question is, Are European governments, police and intelligence services are so weak and incapable of not locating these camps and fighting with them? Or is it free to hold camps for teaching of using heavy weapons through out Europe? What a nice democracy, you can do exactly what ever you want Turkish Services can locate the camps in your countries, but your police cant, is that likely?

I dont think these are covered by your media. I dont think that is simple as " movement for a state of people who were suppressed". The question is how they got organized that well (with adequate finance, logistic support, and political support). And the last question is, why are they supported that much? Have you wondered? The same story that happened in Libya. These are busy days for the petroleum companies for the new sharing of oil sources.