Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removing sources and details

It doesn't matter is Greece in NATO or not, it doesn't stop them supporting the Kurds in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Remember that PKK was established in 1978 and it was added to the terrorist list much later in the 90's. You are not allowed to remove sources and details because they don't support the Kurds anymore. They have been supported and still some Kurdish groups are getting support. Even thought there is no source that the Kurds still get support from Greece, it should not be removed. Instead it should be mentioned, when support began and when did it end if it really ended. This the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, not the PKK-Turkey conflict. @Denizyildirim: It doesn't matter is Greece in NATO or not, they have supported the PKK and it should be there. Instead of removing sources and details. Write when they supported and when they stopped to support. (Like Syria) Ferakp (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC) @Denizyildirim: Removing sources and details without using the talk page could let users to report you.Ferakp (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop being threatening, go ahead and report me, Greece at the moment does not support PKK in any way, and EU recognizes PKK as a terrorist organization. That would mean Greece was aiding terrorists, which she doesn't. If you can find a source that is less then 10 years old, then go ahead and put it here. Besides, just because Ocalan says that Greece supported them does not mean it's true. Denizyildirim (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim:This was your third edit. This is about the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Not the PKK-Turkey conflict. The PKK is just a one group here. Also, remember that Greece has supported the PKK and it should stay there. You can change it to like Syria and add "until..199?" detail. Removing completely is against Wikipedia rules. You are not improving the article, you are removing details and sources.Ferakp (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is Greece once supported the Kurds, but does not support them at the moment. I think the proper course of action would be to leave Greece in the infobox but add beside it in small brackets the date up until they supported them, as with the case of Syria and ASALA. EkoGraf (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This is what I am trying to tell him but he doesn't listen me.Ferakp (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You should probably try a more calmer approach when conducting dialogue with other editors instead of making the same threats as you did towards me (he seems to have reacted much in the same way I did). Read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried to use calmer approach but he is not listening. I told him many times to use the talk page but he just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page, like always. Ferakp (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "he is not listening" ? I'm just doing what is right. I already had a section in the talk page but instead you choose starting one for yourself. Well, that doesn't matter now. I hope you are fine with my latest addition to the article. Denizyildirim (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp To add, I know this isn't PKK-Turkey Conflict, but then other groups listed here aren't so "legal" either. They are all terrorist organizations and I would like to remind you that Turkey cooperates with the Kurdistan Regional Government against them. Denizyildirim (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: Maybe not legal to Turkey but it isn't the point here. Also, remember that none of those groups are in the terrorist list of the UN. This simply means, they are no "terrorists", they are only "terrorists" for you not for all who read this, thus you can't call them terrorists in this article. Turkey cooperate with the KRG doesn't change anything. I don't understand what you mean with that.Ferakp (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp I don't about UN, but my country, Turkey along with EU and USA list them as terrorists. Also be reminded that UN also doesn't recognize Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations. Turkey cooperating with KRG changes everything, it means that this is not a Turkish-Kurdish conflict rather a Turkish-Kurdish Terrorists organization. Not all Kurds are terrorists. Denizyildirim (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: It still doesn't matter, it's all about the UN. This encyclopedia is neutral and it is for everyone, so if you tell the PKK is a terrorist organization and just because some countries and unions in the world say so, you are telling to those who don't see the PKK a a terrorist organization, that this is our encyclopedia. That means the encyclopedia will be biased and Wikipedia is against this. It doesn't matter is there KRG or other Kurds who support Turkey. There is dozens of conflict like this with almost similar background, still they are called Palestinian-Israeli etc.. The PKK has also Turkish members. The conflict however is named the Kurdish-Turkish conflict because of its background and the cause. Experts have explained why it's the Kurdish-Turkish conflict instead of PKK-Turkey conflict. PKK is just a part of the conflict.Ferakp (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp Well that really doesn't matter now, in my opinion PKK along with others are terrorist organizations. USA, EU and UK along with others agree with me. Of course, it may not seem like that to all which I respect. I didn't do any changes in the article referring to PKK as a terrorist organization. That was just a claim made by me in this talk page which I'm still backing. We have seem to have come to and agreement on the article though, I've added "until 1999" and I see that you're fine with that. Denizyildirim (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: Yes, I agreed that. About the PKK, again, remember that it is a part of the conflict and many other organizations are in the terrorist list of unions and countries you mentioned. Thank you for edit.Ferakp (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: You're pushing for an agenda here mate. This conflict is actually called Turkey-PKK conflict by a lot of independent media outlets and a lot academicians.

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=dAX0VqPgHIHY8AeDxoGQDQ&gws_rd=cr&fg=1#q=turkey-pkk+conflict&tbm=bks

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35424525

http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-pkk-conflict-killed-162-civilians-august-rights-group-says-2258153

http://www.conflictmap.org/conflict/kurds_turkey

http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-pkk-conflict-clashes-in-southeast/av-19008732

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey/b080-the-human-cost-of-the-pkk-conflict-in-turkey-the-case-of-sur.aspx

http://www.academia.edu/10515971/The_Turkey-PKK_Conflict

http://www.wsj.com/articles/turkeys-pkk-conflict-takes-toll-on-kurdish-city-1442186320

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/cizre-front-lines-turkey-pkk-conflict-150806064900572.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/contents/articles/originals/2015/11/iraqi-kurdistan-turkey-akp-pkk-conflict.html

http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/e7f23e2c-a9f0-418c-a5e1-2a70f3116bd5/Civilian-deaths-mount-in-Turkey-PKK-conflict

http://www.iran-daily.com/News/134733.html

I can link 100 more links that uses "Turkey-PKK conflict" instead of "Turkish-Kurdish conflict". --Patetez (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: This has been already discussed. About the conflict name, I showed academic sources but also news. Here is the newest book about the conflict. PKK-Turkey conflict is conflict between the PKK and Turkey. This is Kurdish-Turkish conflict, it's conflict between Kurdish groups and Turkey + all their allies. Some Kurdish groups are not cooperating and they have different objectives. I added sources when I changed the name of this article to Kurdish-Turkish conflict. The sources says directly that the conflict is called Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Ferakp (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Even though I agree with the writer, I didn't write that entry, I always sign my entries. Denizyildirim (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: You said "it's conflict between Kurdish groups and Turkey + all their allies. Some Kurdish groups are not cooperating and they have different objectives." Care about sharing sources for that claim? Because you didn't share any sources to back up that claim. YDG-H takes it's orders from the PKK. PJAK is the Iranian branch of PKK. HPG is the army of PKK etc. etc... and all of these organizations fall under the KCK umbrella. --Patetez (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Patetez: I don't need to share any sources, you can visit their articles and find sources related to them. The TAK wants independent Kurdistan, the PKK autonomous area, the PIK Islamic Kurdistan, Communist Kurds want Communist Kurdistan. <--- Different ideologies. Not all of those are under KCK. Ferakp (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp:

First of all TAK actually wants autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan just like PKK they do not want independence. That's why they stopped their attacks during the 3 year long peace process. Between 2012-2015 TAK didn't even do a single attack. That means TAK and the PKK cooperate with each other, they also have the same goals, they share the same ideology, they both consider Abdullah Ocalan as their supreme leader, all TAK members are ex-PKK etc. etc.

Here is a Stratfor article about the relations between PKK and TAK: https://www.stratfor.com/sample/weekly/untangling-threads-terrorism-turkey --- I'll copy-paste the important parts here, you can also use your email to access the full article.

"There is some uncertainty regarding the relationship between the PKK and the TAK. Some observers claim that the TAK is a radical splinter that broke away from the PKK. Others maintain that the TAK is actually a PKK urban warfare unit using another name to deflect blame from the political group, or an autonomous unit that subscribes to the PKK's general philosophy but does not operate under its direct guidance. Stratfor ascribes to the latter position because of the close correlation between TAK attacks and the PKK's cease-fire — they ceased attacks before the cease-fire was proclaimed in March 2013, and resumed them shortly after the cease-fire was ended in November 2015. If the TAK was really a more radical splinter of the PKK, it could have been expected to conduct attacks after the PKK proclaimed its unilateral cease-fire. For its part, TAK claims it is separate from the PKK, but Stratfor believes it is more important to judge the group by what it does than what it says for public consumption."

Here is another article about the relationship between PKK and TAK written by Frederike Geerdink an extremely pro-Kurdish journalist: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/after-ankara-bomning-questions-over-pkk-tak-ties-resurface-1097219220

"Journalists like Aliza Marcus, who wrote a book on the history of the PKK, expressed scepticism about the PKK's claim that its didn't know who carried out the attack and that it could not comment since it had no information about TAK. "It would be the first time in the history of the PKK that they allow the existence of any other group representing the Kurds than themselves. In the 1990s, the PKK fought with rival Kurdish groups in Europe, it has killed dissidents within its own ranks. I see no reason why they would allow another group on the stage now," she told me via Skype. In Marcus's view: "It's unlikely that the PKK issues a direct order for an attack like the one in Ankara, but I do think they have control over their actions."

And about "PIK" and "Communist Kurds".

The PIK isn't a part of conflict because they haven't fought against Turkey. This thread is about a conflict and PIK is not a part of it. If you have any sources that shows fighting between Turkey and PIK then share them otherwise PIK is not a part of conflict.

And "Communist Kurds"... Who are these communist Kurds? You never share sources. Stop making claims without sharing any sources. Once again if you have any sources that shows fighting between Turkey and these "Communist Kurds" share them.

Literally all of the fighting in this conflict happens between KCK organizations and Turkey. And every now and then TAK explodes some bombs in Western parts of Turkey but TAK never actively fights against Turkey that's why they're actually not a part in this conflict, because they don't have any armed militant they only do bombings. That's why the previous title was perfectly fine but it was changed after you were twisting the truth in order to push for your own agenda to change the title and I think that decision to change the title should be revised by the mods/admins. Someone even said "It is a conflict between both unorganized Kurdish civilians in cities and villages" about this conflict. And that is is totally false. Here is a video from Cizre a Kurdish town in Turkish Kurdistan where the most intense clashes related to this conflict happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwe4msjHCXs - Do these people look like unorganized Kurdish civilians at all? --Patetez (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "Opinions" and who is Stratfor ever are just opinions. The US see the TAK as a different organization, TAK itsel say it's a different organization and also, the PKK says that the TAK is totally different organization. Your sources, I have read them all before. None of them are enough to make the TAK an offshoot of the PKK. There is also a lot of sources which says that the TAK is not the PKK offshoot. Your sources aren't enough because there is also sources against your sources. Also, remember that the TAK is still seeking independence. This is what they said to international press last December. About communist Kurds, I see that they are removed from the article, it is possible that they merged with the PKK. As far as international publications and studies call it the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, it is accepted to keep it. If you think, it should be changed to PKK-Turkey conflict, you need reliable and strong sources which could directly say that the conflict between all Kurdish groups and Turkey is called a PKK-Turkey conflict. Ferakp (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish-Turkish conflict? Seriously?

I am Kurdish myself and has never had any problem with any of my Turkish friends. This should be changed into "Turkey-pkk conflict" not Turkish-Kurdish. Stop trying to start a civil war in our country. we Kurds are 10 mil people here and pkk is numbered 20-30k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.221.248 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Title of article is wrong. There is no problem between Turks and Kurds in Turkey. Problem is between State of Turkey and PKK. There are Kurdish soldiers in Turkish Army and there are Turks in PKK. So please correct the title. I think it should be Turkey - PKK conflict. 88.248.100.71 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of updated casualty numbers and reintroduction of out-dated casualty numbers

Needbrains Your reverts of my edits replaced the updated 2015/16 casualty figures for the whole conflict with older out-dated figures (older by 4-9 years). You said the source did not cite where its info came from, even though it stated the figures came from, and I quote, a report published by Turkey's official news agency. You also claimed the news site is controversial, even though you did not provide any sources to confirm its controversial, as per WP policy. You further stated nobody else reported these figures, this is incorrect, here's a few [1][2], including the official state news agency that was previously cited, which itself cites a Turkish security source. The exact same civilian toll was also reported on by another media outlet, twice, [3][4]. Finally, the figure you changed in the infobox is not per its cited sources. Other regular editors of these article should be involved on the discussion as well Ferakp, Beshogur, ILoveMashiroShiina, Greyshark09, on whether we should use the newest official figures provided by Turkey (the ones you removed). I also ask that you discuss this issue and please to stick to WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Made an attempt at compromise, reinstated the older PKK figures (which seem to be the point of discrepancy), while I made a note they are older/earlier figures, and left the newest estimates at the top of the section on casualties. I elaborated that the 2007 and 2009 figures showed a much larger number of dead PKK, but, one of the older figures for 2012 already showed a revised down number (which would seem to be in line with the newest 2015 number). EkoGraf (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Made a further attempt at compromise by adding the higher figure of PKK dead (which you have been reverting to) to the infobox as an upper estimate. EkoGraf (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Aight i like your compromise Needbrains (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Needbrains Thank you. I am glad we found a compromise solution. But there seems to be another problem now. ILoveMashiroShiina is inserting a figure of 44,000 PKK dead, but the source he provided makes no mention of 44,000. I asked him about this but got no reply so far. I hope he will respond here at this talk page so we can resolve this. EkoGraf (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Needbrains Saw you attempted to revert to my compromise version, thank you, but you only managed to revert that IP editor's edit. ILoveMashiroShiina's cancellation of all my edits is still active. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Saw your last edit, thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would like it if the user: Ferakp , would stop removing sourced content.

The current casualties were till the year 2012, while I added on that the casualties from 2015-2016 (see source from Anadolu Ajansi. Besides that I added the full list in wich the captured pkk militants are mentioned(till the year 2010), wich the user Ferakp keeps removing without any reason. Hakan3400 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian support for the PKK

Turkish government has accused Sisi government of Egypt of supporting the PKK. I think Egypt should be added to the infobox of the article as a supporter of the PKK. Maybe we can add the side that it is a Turkish claim or it is alleged in brackets (like this (Egypt (alleged, since 2016))). Here are my sources,:

• http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/270620161
• http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/sisi-government-met-pkk-three-times-turkish-intelligence-report.aspx?PageID=238&NID=100968&NewsCatID=352
• http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/28/turkey-accuses-egyptian-president-support-pkk/

--FPSTurkey (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties sources

I would like it if the user: Ferakp , would stop removing sourced content. The current casualties were till the year 2012, while I added on that the casualties from 2015-2016 (see source from Anadolu Ajansi. Besides that I added the full list in wich the captured pkk militants are mentioned(till the year 2010), wich the user Ferakp keeps removing without any reason. Hakan3400 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

The user is adding random sources and updating the number of casualties without checking already counted years. The current casualty stats includes all casualties between 1978 and 2016. Also, the number of captured militants, 19,101, which Hakan tries to add is not valid and the source he added does not support his own claim, it refutes his claim. Also other different sources that were added before are against his changes. The source([5]) Hakan added claims 5,088 captured militants in 26 years (-2010). Currently confirmed captured numbers are from annual reports of 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016 and the overall conflict reports of 2010, 2012, and 2013. Any added source which has been written before 2013 will be ignored, as the overall conflict report (1978-2013) has been already added to the article! Also, the AA source claims More than 10,000 terrorists "neutralized" by security forces over the same period and if you are familiar with military terms, neutralization term is not used to only for killed militants. It could mean anything: killed, captured, wounded, left the armed conflict etc. Thus it's wrong to add that number to the current casualty stats without mentioning this, which I did in my previous edits. Ferakp (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Unvalid? Read the sources better. Your source are only till 2012. Its doesn't include the casualties from 2015-2016. You keep edditing to your own will and without discussing it. I added the newest casualties witch you keep removing. The number of captured I added was til the year 2010 (see source from Milliyet). How does it even make sense to keep the casualties low by not adding the newer casualties? And second, these are Turkish claims, if you have a problem with it, go and add pkk claims as well. Hakan3400 (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I reccomend you to read your given source and the one I added recently from Anadolu agency. Before the add on, the casualties were till 32,000 (year 2012). Then I added the ones between 2015-2016, basiccaly adding the newer ones on the old ones as a second estimation. The capured numbers include both wounded captured, surrendered and captured with an reliable source per Turkey.

This is exactly your problem here. You are assuming that previous edit 32,000 was OK, so let's add more using other sources. No, that's not allowed, WP:Rules are not allowing such thing. Someone had changed numbers without using citations and they have been restored now.Ferakp (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you think the numbers are way to high or the sourced are not valid (in whatever way it is) doesn't give you the right the remove it without a good endong discussion at the talk page. Removing sourced and well explained content is against the rules. Hakan3400 (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And third, why did you remove the 32,000 number then? It was well sourced in the old sources. And the 10,000 neutralaized are 'mostly' killed. Thats why thhe capured ones were put apart. Hakan3400 (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources that have been added are annual reports of 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016 and the overall conflict reports of 2010, 2012, and 2013. Check all sources of infobox, this has been discussed before where me and many other users agreed on final edits. You can't add casualties using reports that are published between 2015 and 2016 if the annual report of 2016 has been already added. The number of captured was updated to the 2016 report's numbers. Read all sources that have been added and also other discussions here on talk page. Ferakp (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so why are you removing the 32,101 kiled then? Thats what the estimation was till this edit war then keep it like that. And nowhere in the Turkish sources does it say around 25,101 wounded. The old estimated didn't have the ones from 2016 till I added these sources Hakan3400 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If you reverse one more time without using this talk page, you will be reported. The 25k wounded number is from AA and Milliyet. YeniSafak, Milliyet and Haberturk say that more than 21,000 soldiers and officers were wounded and all those sources are complete conflict reports (1978-2013) that are published before 2014. The newest AA source claims over 4,000 security personnel have been wounded. That makes 25,000 with old 21,000. Do you understand it now?Ferakp (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Then Quit removing the 32,101 killed pkk numbers wich is clearly mentioned in your 'new' sources Hakan3400 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert the edit back to 32,101 killed if you don't wanna get an edit war. Because know, I can report you for this as well Hakan3400 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So now you are edding miliyet (old) with AA (new) with each other, but when I do the same with the pkk casualties its wrong? I think your shod revert the edits back to 32,101 killed, otherwise I will report you fro reverting/removing my sourced edits Hakan3400 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Which source exactly supports your claim that 32,101 have been killed? Can you show me such a source or sources? If you want to add the new 10,000 number (AA) to the old one, which was ~21,000, that would be wrong as I told you that the newest AA annual report of 2016 claims that 10,000 have been neutralized, not killed (read above what neutralized means). I added those neutralized to wounded section and said captured, wounded or killed. Ferakp (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Restart of casualties talk

Ok, I'm now jumping in here. I checked both the edits of 2001:1c04:2902... and Ferakp. And I must mostly agree with 2001:1c04:2902...
1st, it really is redundant to state the number of wounded security forces twice.
2nd, I think the reason 2001:1c04:2902 keeps reverting your figure of wounded Ferakp from 25,128 to 21,128 is because you only provided the source for the 1984-2015 figure (21,128) and didn't provide the source for the 2015-16 figure (additional 4,000).
3rd, the 10,000 figure refers to both dead, wounded and captured. Such a mix up shouldn't be used at all when most of the figures we are using are all for the individual/separate categories. The dead number that should be used is the last confirmed one from September (6,000) for the July 2015-September 2016 period. As a compromise, we could maybe mention the overall figure of 10,000 in the casualties section of the main body of the article.
4th, you cited this source [6] twice Ferakp.
5th, and final, the PKK number of dead... Ferakp, you are constantly inserting the 22,101 figure, which per the sources you provided, is only up to 2012. So its an outdated number. Lets go through the most newest, and those are 22,374 (1984-August 2015)[7] and 6,000 (July 2015-September 2016)[8]. I think we can safely say this represents a (bottom) overall number of 28,374. Now, I myself think this should be the only number we stick to. However, another editor, Needbrains, a few months ago insisted that we should include some older numbers from this source [9] for up to 2010. His reasoning was that the larger number was the correct one because the media outlet cited the military directly, while the media outlet that reported the newer (smaller) number did not say from whom the figure was coming from. He didn't even care about the (again lower) figure from 2012 that you have been citing Ferakp. In my opinion it was apparent both of the (lower) figures from 2012 and 2015 were coming from the Turkish government or military and I think he was expressing non-neutral POV behavior. But, as a compromise and to avoid an edit war, we agreed to include the 2010 figure, combined with the 2015-16 one, as an upper overall toll. So, if we combine the 2010 and 2015-16 we get 35,639. But, 2001:1c04:2902 and Ferakp, if you two agree, I would still like to remove that outdated 2010 figure and leave only the 28,374 figure (combination of 1984-2015 and 2015-16). EkoGraf (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, what you are trying to say here, it's already discussed above and I explained why ~35k casualty number is wrong. I have used annual reports, not single clash reports. It makes it much more clearer. Ferakp (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand it. You are adding new sources and combine it with some old ones. The old ones give atleast the 28,000 number and you add newer ones and make it 22,000? You know them that something isn't right. And that you agreed with one of the users at the talk page doesn't mean that the discussion is over. The first numbers already gave an numbers of atleast 28,000 and 34,000. If you add the 10,000 losses from 2015-2016 (AA source), then that means that the number would go atleast 40,000 as you would have to add that on each other. You on the other hand remove some of the older ones and replace it with a new ones thus it makes it quit confusing and wrong MAMODIVIC (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, you made a new account and jumped to the thread like a magic. How many times they should ban you until you realize that sockpuppeting is not allowed? About your edits. Read carefully what I wrote above but since I've tried to repeat dozens of times "read the talk page" and "read what I wrote above" comments and you just don't understand it, let me repeat here one more time why your edits are wrong. First of all, we don't add random clash reports and count number of casualties using those sources. We use "annual reports" and "overall conflict reports". Now, you can find tons of sources claiming x number of PKK fighters were killed here and there but you are wasting your time if those clashes occur between "xxxx" and "xxxx + 1" years and IF there is annual report of the year xxxx+1 which includes casualties from "xxxx" to "xxxx + 1". For example, Yeni Safak published overall conflict report (1984-2015) and thus we don't need to add single clash reports between 1984 and 2015 or even annual reports between 1984 and 2015 because we have one report that covers everything between 1984 and 2015. According to Yeni Safak source, 22,374 fighters have been killed between 1984 and 2015, and 1,480 have been captured. Then we have AA's 2016 annual report, which says 10,000 "terrorists" have been neutralized. It says "neutralized, not killed, which means 10,000 were either killed, captured or wounded. So now we have a source (Yeni Safak) for 1984-2015 casualties and another source(AA) for 2015-2016 casualties: using both sources we get 22,374 killed, and 11,480 killed, wounded or captured. In article we have mentioned 22,474 killed, 14,937 captured, wounded or killed. 22,374 killed and 11,480 captured, wounded or killed are from YS and AA sources, the rest of them are from single clash reports which were published after AA's annual report 10.11.2016. I hope you understand it now.Ferakp (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And even on both sides, if you would add the 8,000 killed from 2015, it would make id overall again more than 30,000 deaths MAMODIVIC (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because one source (Yeni Safak) says that, doesn't mean that you have the right to remove the older sources. As some of the other ones give numbers from 28,000-35,000. And to remind you, these casualty figures are Turkish claims. If you don't like them because they are too high or something like that, then add another list in witch the pkk claims their total casualties. MAMODIVIC (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the source from Miliyet again. It clearly says more than 19,000 captured yet you remove this number without any explanation MAMODIVIC (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Milliyet source is in conflict with all other sources. It's 9:1 in case of Milliyet, so all other 9 sources are against it. In this case, we will have to ignore Milliyet and continue with other 9 sources.Ferakp (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, buts thats not how Wikipedia works. All sources, wheter you like it or not, have to be count up. Bute thats not the only problem. By the way, there are more then 1 Miliyet sources, witch has its sources from the Turkish military. You are removing these numbers and add something compeltely different. And no, you can't just remove it without discussing it. MAMODIVIC (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And because the other sources don't report the same doesn't mean that these sources sre against it. You know that you are wrong on this point. I already stated why I reverted back wrong content. You on the other hand keep lowering the numbers of killed by adding newer sources? How? That doesn't make any sence as the other one gives an number of 28,000. And I can now also use the Turkish page of this conflict as another sources about what Turkey claims about pkk casualties. You should read the sources better MAMODIVIC (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

MAMODIVIC: No, that's exactly how Wikipedia works. Also, Milliyet source is older than others. On other hand, Milliyet has published two years later (2012) another news in which it has said that 21,800 PKK fighters have been killed. As you see, Milliyet is so unreliable that its own news are in conflict with each other. Ferakp (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope thats not how Wikipedia works. If there are two news artciles from the same media/or news outlet, doesn't mean that the one is in conflict with the other. Also, you 14,000 killed wounded and captured only includes killed and captured. The wounded ones are the ones who were captured while they were wounded (see source) MAMODIVIC (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Read carefully the source I added. An article which was published by Milliyet in 2012 has claimed that 21,800 PKK fighters have been killed, while article which Milliyet published in 2010 claimed that 29k fighters have been killed. If the newest article of same source has changed casualty numbers then we will simply go with the newest one. There is no sense in your comment.Ferakp (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Seein that we both don't agre with each other. I think the best idea is to get more editors in this discussion and/or add both figures/numbers on the casualties list as an estimation/other claims MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I added for now both claims and changed it to 'Turkish claims' as there are different sources+no consensus can be reached for now (your edit was made more then a week after the reverse of Ekograf) MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sources and edits casualties

Think about it that if you add newer sources that you are gonna keep the old sources/and numbers as it was before the edits. Adding the source from AA and then removing several numbers from the older ones makes it confusing and quite wrong. For example, if one of the older sources says that more than 30,000 were killed, then you gonna have to keep that number there except if you are gonna add the newer numbers on it without removing it (with is wat Ferakp did). And think about it to not start an edit war because of these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterinda (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

I see that there is something wrong with the edits. Ferakp is removing some of the old sources and adding a new one thus mixing it with each other while the current numbers are all from the same source with more details MAMODIVIC (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I answered to you above. Read my comment.Ferakp (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Before you touch casualties numbers

Dear editor,

Before you change casualties section, please explain your changes here. Me and several other users have explained our changes using sources but despite that suck puppets and disruptive editors are trying to play with numbers without using the talk page. I am watching the article so if you have played with casualty numbers, you edits will be reversed. Ferakp (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The first change (after your edit, was already made by Ekograf and since then no consensus was reached on the talk page. What I'm saying there is that you remove some of the old sourced numbers. For example, the old Miliyet sources give the amount of captured as 19,000, while you keep lowering this number. You add new sources but remove some of rhe older ones, witch is wrong. These are as important as the new ones and if you want to make it right, then you have to add the new numbers on the older ones. Also, please take in note that by having an agreement with one of the editors doesn't mean that the discussion is over. You can't just add new sources by removing the older ones. MAMODIVIC (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can. The newest sources are more reliable than older ones. Your own sources are in conflict with each other. Your old Milliyet source is in conflict with the newest Milliyet source. According to Wikipedia rules, we should pick the newest one and ignore the older one.Ferakp (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Accordig to your logic, we should only add the casualties from this year because they are more new. Thats not how it works. You have to add on the newer numbers on the older ones or make an estimation with reliable sources MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The older could be wrong or gives wrong numbers. The newest is more reliable. Ferakp (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I added for now both claims and changed it to 'Turkish claims' as there are different sources+no consensus can be reached for now (your edit was made more then a week after the reverse of Ekograf) MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutralized

Dear editor,

Neutralized means wounded, captured or killed. The newest AA source which claims 10,000 have been neutralized means that they are wounded, captured or killed. Older captured or wounded are also included in that.Ferakp (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I added for now both claims and changed it to 'Turkish claims' as there are different sources+no consensus can be reached for now (your edit was made more then a week after the reverse of Ekograf) MAMODIVIC (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy is clear, nobody can combine outdated/older figures with newer/up-to-date figures. Per Wikipedia policy, we use only the newest most up-to-date figures. Explaining my last edit [10], step by step, for the last time. As I pointed out in the reference, we have:
1. 22,374 confirmed killed for the 1984–2015 period (up to when the ceasefire collapsed) per this source here [11];
2. 9,500 confirmed explicetly killed for the 2015–16 period (after the collapse of the ceasefire) as per this source here [12];
3. And finally 19,013 captured in the 1984–2009 period as per this source here [13]. 5,088 captured wounded, 10,144 captured unharmed and 3,871 surrendered, that's 19,013.
This makes a total of 31,874 reported killed and 19,013 captured.

Only now am I starting to understand what you were doing with your edits Ferakp when you wrote 22,474 killed, 14,937 captured, wounded or killed. You were referring to the 22,374 killed 1984–2015 (you miss-typed and put 22,474), and combined 10,000 neutralized 2015–16 with the number of captured reported earlier. There is no need to combine 10,000 neutralized with the previous numbers of captured anymore. Erdogan made an explicit claim of 9,500 killed a few days ago. So we combine that with the earlier 22,374 figure for the dead, while mentioning the 19,013 captives I explained above. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

22,474 is not miss-typeD, it's based on sources. Sputnik is not a reliable source and President speech is not a good source. You need annual or overall reports to confirm such thing. PKK leaders also says in their speech they have killed 8,000-9,000 soldiers last year, but their organization gave another numbers. You need reliable source to confirm your claim. Both of you, MAMODIVIC and EkoGraf, don't touch new edits based on reliable and newest sources until you have reliable sources to support your changes. Ferakp (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The head of a state is an reliable source. And so is Sputnik in this case. If you don't like it that there are different numbers on this, then you have to add both numbers. And also, there was no censensus reached that the editors agreed with your numbers MAMODIVIC (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spuntik News is not a reliable source. [14]. For your head of state you need a reliable source where "your head of state" claims that. And let me repeat again. It's not me who reach consensus before edit, it's you because I was first who added sources and edited it. You came later and changed it without using the talk page. Learn WP rules.Ferakp (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear MAMODIVIC and EkoGraf, I have explained very well the problems with your edits. What both of you are doing here is clearly Cherry picking, which is prohibited. You can't pick news like that and take those things from your news which serves your interests. I explained this dozens of times and let me repeat it: Your third source which says 19,013 have been captured is not VALID! Your source is Milliyet and it has been published in 2010, but Milliyet has published another similar news in 2012, where it't not anymore claiming that 19,013 have been captured![15] Also, all other newest sources have published same stats like Milliyet in 2012. ::Also, for you information MAMODIVIC, I have added sources to my edits and explained them tens of times here on talk page. It's you that should make sure consensus has been reached before editing, not me. Ferakp (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You are once again editing an article before an consensus was reached. After the edit of Ekograf you came an week later and changed it. I added both figures but Ekograf decided to change it to an more logical version by not confusing and mixing the sources (witch is what you did). Also, stop asking and saying the whole time that you reachrd an consensus witch is not true. At the moment you are discussing with two other editors (me and Ekograf) as the later one is more neutral then us two. If you don't agree eith hime and me, then go and discuss about it instead of removing sourced content. You add the whorl time the old figure of 22,000 killed+the recent ones from 2015-2016. No one asked you to explain why it should be that way. I asked you that removing the older numbers and then adding newer ones without keeping the first numbers, is wrong. MAMODIVIC (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The other source from miliyet that does not mention the 19,000 captured is because its less detailed (see the source self). That doesn't mean that the other one dissagrees with that number. The miliyet source that was already here (before you decided to remove it) was more datailed about the part of the total captured pkk militants ad it included surrendered, captured wounded and captured alive. While the other one only gives the numbers of the pkk militants that were captured wounded, not surrendered. Please check your own sources once again and check mine as well MAMODIVIC (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your problem here is that you interpret things how you like, not how they are. Where do you know Milliyet source is less detailed and that's why it doesn't mention 19k captured? Are Yeni Safak, Haberturk, Hurriyet and other sources also "less detailed" because they don't agree with Milliyet?Ferakp (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MAMODIVIC: Are you sure I came week later? Check out history of the article, I edited this article already last year! You are using old source which is against newest sources, just because it serves your interests. This is not how Wikipedia works. Ferakp (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? I said that you edtited this article before your so called consensus was reached an week after the edit of Ekograf in witch he changed the numbers after the discussion/confusing numbers from you. Also, yes, If you had read the source from Miliyet you could have seen that it is more dtailed (see above of what I said about the captured numbers). Its not my problem that you have some dificulties with reading sources. Your own problem. Also, if you don't agree with one source doesn't mean that you have the right to remove it and replace it with source('s) that you add and think its right. There is a talk page on Wiki for a reason MAMODIVIC (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp, first, at this point consensus in fact exists. Everyone is in agreement at this point that you are incorrect in some of your edits. Second, you say 22,474 is based on a source and not a miss-type but none of the sources you cite mentioned 22,474. I really have no idea what you consider reliable sources. All of the sources that you provided are citing Turkish claims, as well as all of the sources that I have cited. The latest claim by Erdogan of 9,500 dead via Turkish BBC news is I think as reliable as you can get when citing Turkish claims. Considering the figure of 9,500 dead is from just a few days ago, it supersedes the OLDER figure of 10,000 killed or captured from more than a month ago that is out-dated now. Finally, regarding the captured. You never cited in the infobox this miliyet source [16] from 2012. You cited (2 times) the miliyet source from 2010 and a source from 2013 that does not even mention figures of captured. Since you have now finally cited the 2013 source, I will make an edit to reflect this source (it says 203,000 people have been arrested as terrorists since 1984). However, I should warn both of you, that at this point you have engaged in an edit war. Ferakp, you violated 3RR (no more than 3 reverts full or partial in 24 hours). Based on this an administrator can block you. If you continue edit warring, I will be obligated by WP policy to report you. MAMODIVIC, you haven't violated 3RR, but already made 3 reverts. So I would ask both to cool off for a bit. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Who are everyone? I am trying to tell both of you that if Milliyet claims 19k have been captured but two years later it doesn't claim it anymore and all other sources also don't claim that 19k have been captured then there is no sense to use it. Erdogan doesn't explicitly says 9,5k have been killed, he says "kaybının" which could mean killed but also "losts"(wounded, killed, captured etc.). I am trying to explain this but both of you don't understand it. Anyway, I am so tired of this conversation, it seems like both of you are not willing to even read your sources, so I don't care anymore and go ahead and report me.Ferakp (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp Did you read the whole BBC report? Erdogan talked about detained/arrested figures separately in the very next sentence. And did you miss the part where I inserted your 2012 source (which you didn't use before in the infobox) with the 203,000 arrested figure? EkoGraf (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp I find it highly uncivil and in bad faith attacking me for being a sockpuppet master of MAMODIVIC, just because you don't agree with both of our edits. If that's the way you want it instead of trying to find a compromise than I will report you for the 3RR violation, for which I also warned MAMODIVIC. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not reporting you because of this talk page. I am reporting you because of your suspicious talk page. Sock puppets have given you Barnstars. I want just want to be sure you are not a sockpuppet master of MAMODIVIC. If you are not, then don't worry.Ferakp (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp Who or what gives me barnstars isn't my concern. But instead of trying to find a solution to the problem on the talk page you engage in bad faith behavior with the accusations against both me and MAMODIVIC. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But its kind of ridiculous that he accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Ekograf. And besides that, I asked Ferakp to continiue on the talk page, instead he reports me for being that? MAMODIVIC (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And no one is gonna get reported (as long as there is no violation of the rules). We are just discussing a thing here in witch we have some disagreements in MAMODIVIC (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

MAMODIVIC Here's the page where he's making his accusations Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EkoGraf. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

EkoGraf: See, MAMODIVIC was a sockpuppet. I wasn't worried for nothing. Ferakp (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but you still made a bad faith accusation against me. In any case, the matter is closed now. EkoGraf (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But why is the militairy and 2010 milliyet source completely removed? The general staff said that till 2010 29704 terrorists were killed. So shouldnt it be this number plus the new source (29704+9500=39204)? Needbrains (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think i saw somewhere that claimed that total pkk killed were 40000+ if i can find it i will show it Needbrains (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

They were removed because those figures were outdated. New lower figures were presented/claimed in 2015 for the 1984-2015 period. Lower figures (than the ones from 2010) were also presented back in 2012 and 2013. The current figure is a combination of the 1984-2015 figure (22,374) and the 2015-16 figure (9,500). If you do have a Turkish source claiming 40,000 PKK dead it could be useful that we can present it as an upper estimate in comparison to the current lower one. But as far as I remember I have only seen the figure of 40,000 mentioned in the context of it being an overall figure of dead on both sides (including civilians). EkoGraf (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Arrested

Based on Ferakp's source which cites 203,000 people arrested

203,000 militants arrested? Are you serious? Ferakp (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what your source said. 203,000 detained for being terrorist organisation members. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tribes

Kurdish tribes are not a force or militia. Both news were telling about some Kurdish tribe who supported the government against the PKK. Some of them are part of village guard system, some just political. Village guard system is not just Kurdish, most of its members aren't even from S.East anymore.Ferakp (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Some tribes supporting turkish government i added 1 more sources.Shadow4dark (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wounded

Can i remove the number of wounded from the Turkish casualties? I thought it is generally accepted to not include wounded, especially if it is very old. If no one has any objections ill remove it tomorrow Needbrains (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Needbrains Don't mind removing the wounded, even though its just by a year old. I think the number of captured on Turkish side should also perhaps be removed since the figure is highly incomplete (so not an appropriate representation) and outdated as well. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Major concerns on sourcing

I have some major concerns on the sourcing of this article. Weak sources, such as individual news articles or even blog posts or opinion pieces are consistently being used to support controversial material and extraordinary claims. There appears to be little effort to integrate any peer-reviewed sources or academic literature, even to provide a sound overview of human rights reports across the years.

Look no further than the infobox for the first instance: it is said that in addition to 18,000–20,000 executed Kurds, there are 17,000 missing. An extraordinary claim, so surely it must be supported by extraordinary sources, right? Well...

For the missing people: one source, which is used four times in this article, is an article published in the Los Angeles Times blog ([17]). Not a news article, not even an opinion piece, but a blog. And who is it by? Becky Lee Katz. And who is Becky Lee Katz? A law student. I cannot express the level of dismay I felt when I found out that such claims were being supported by such an outrageous source (she does cite a HRW report that notes disappearances but gives no numbers).

The second source for that claim? Asia Times, self-described as focused on "Asian and Oceanian business, financial, economic and political news, analysis and commentary". The article is written by someone who specialises on business strategy.

How about the figure of Kurdish civilians executed? There are two decent books cited there, but I could only find material on the number of villages, not Kurds executed. The two remaining sources? An article written by a university librarian in a random website that refers to civilian killings and a 2004 AP news article that talk about a HLP report. I, for one, would like to see that report and have that cited.

This source struck me for being used eight times. I don't know Dutch so can't analyse the content, but the author, Bert Bakkenes, appears to be a novelist working for a Kurdish organization.

I could give many more examples as such, these were some outrageous ones. EcoGraf, this was why I reverted your edit: the source that I added does give an outdated number but it's the only proper source in there about civilian deaths. The other figures should be supported with proper sources or removed, per WP:RS and WP:V. And for the time being, the article certainly requires tagging to alert the reader; this is just way too much for me to fix it myself. --GGT (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Made an attempt at compromise, left the 17,000 missing removed (don't feel like arguing over it too much) and moved your figure more up, but just bellow the most up-to-date Turkish claim. Hope this is satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your approach. I am fine with your edits; the state of the article is certainly not "satisfactory" though. --GGT (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinarcik

Pinarcik massacre hasn't been claimed by the PKK and Serxebun is not PKK newspaper. Pinarcik massacre case is still open in Turkey and former special forces officer has claimed that they were behind it.Ferakp (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• These claims are unfortunately inaccurate and have been refuted with a wealth of peer-reviewed and other reliable literature on Talk:Pınarcık massacre. The peer-reviewed Belge article, written after the aforementioned claim, and cited in this article, explicitly concludes on PKK responsibility. The claims mentioned by Ferakp haven't been picked up by any literature I could find during hours of research. --GGT (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402153348/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/74950.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/74950.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114042731/http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorgrup1.html to http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorgrup1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191132/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11142005-144616/unrestricted/003Manuscript.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11142005-144616/unrestricted/003Manuscript.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120090016/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269055-fears-of-suicide-prompt-evren-family-to-remove-coup-leaders-firearms.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269055-fears-of-suicide-prompt-evren-family-to-remove-coup-leaders-firearms.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HsTMvep5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayszaman.com%2Fnews-297273-secret-witness-reveals-identity-shady-ties-between-pkk-and-ergenekon.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-297273-secret-witness-reveals-identity-shady-ties-between-pkk-and-ergenekon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626123957/http://www.menewsline.com/article-809-New-PKK-Leadership-Takes-Over-Ins.aspx to http://www.menewsline.com/article-809-New-PKK-Leadership-Takes-Over-Ins.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402153348/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/74950.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/74950.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327045138/http://orbat.com/site/gd/cwpf_2006/cwpf_display%20version.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/gd/cwpf_2006/cwpf_display%20version.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/%28httpEnvelopes%29/F583DF6E49225B7F802570B8005AA873?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915092937/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey/219-turkey-the-pkk-and-a-kurdish-settlement to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey/219-turkey-the-pkk-and-a-kurdish-settlement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150720220153/http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm to https://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081035/http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/turkey/mar99_turkey_kurds.pdf to http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/turkey/mar99_turkey_kurds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922230047/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n4_v61/ai_19254727 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n4_v61/ai_19254727
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%28153683DB7E984D23214BD871B2AC75E8%29~Attach%2BB%2B-%2BAg_s.PDF/%24file/Attach%2BB%2B-%2BAg_s.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action%3Bjsessionid%3DE6F2FF01111B4E530468FAE2C7EA880B?load=detay&link=213628&newsId=213559
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916093607/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200308092560&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200308092560&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026113630/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/139749/bloodiest-pkk-fight-in-years-kill-dozens.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/139749/bloodiest-pkk-fight-in-years-kill-dozens.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150729143815/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_kck-official-says-pkk-not-responsible-for-murders-of-2-turkish-policemen_394957.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_kck-official-says-pkk-not-responsible-for-murders-of-2-turkish-policemen_394957.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081035/http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/turkey/mar99_turkey_kurds.pdf to http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/turkey/mar99_turkey_kurds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026115402/http://kurdistan.org/work/commentary/turkeys-kurdish-policy-in-the-nineties/ to http://www.kurdistan.org/work/commentary/turkeys-kurdish-policy-in-the-nineties/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpCountrySummaries%29/66D21F80E3A69E41C125732200255E35?OpenDocument&count=10000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120213619/http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=274954 to http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=274954

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922170816/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223048-102-turkey-devises-action-plan-to-dry-up-pkks-foreign-support.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-223048-102-turkey-devises-action-plan-to-dry-up-pkks-foreign-support.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=805&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=181&no_cache=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102143843/http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/180/turkish-hezbollah-hizbullah-kurdish-hezbollah.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/180/turkish-hezbollah-hizbullah-kurdish-hezbollah.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110043827/http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-23/sex-scandal-shake-up-reinvigorates-turkey-opposition-boosts-poll-standing to http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-23/sex-scandal-shake-up-reinvigorates-turkey-opposition-boosts-poll-standing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811042233/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CUSDOS%2C%2CTUR%2C%2C3ae6aa7b18%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CUSDOS%2C%2CTUR%2C%2C3ae6aa7b18%2C0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006073753/http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/217/chronology-of-the-important-events-in-the-world-pkk-chronology-1976-2006-.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/217/chronology-of-the-important-events-in-the-world-pkk-chronology-1976-2006-.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626100153/http://www.sucbilimi.org/?ana=teror&alt=pshk to http://www.sucbilimi.org/?ana=teror&alt=pshk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102143843/http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/180/turkish-hezbollah-hizbullah-kurdish-hezbollah.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/180/turkish-hezbollah-hizbullah-kurdish-hezbollah.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019212340/http://dalje.com/en-world/pkk-suspects-held-over-foiled-ankara-bomb/80894 to http://dalje.com/en-world/pkk-suspects-held-over-foiled-ankara-bomb/80894
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012151928/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-192410-100-critical-week-for-turkey-as-kurdish-initiative-comes-to-parliament.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-192410-100-critical-week-for-turkey-as-kurdish-initiative-comes-to-parliament.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127082510/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-187472-101-outline-of-kurdish-initiative-emerges-at-security-summit.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-187472-101-outline-of-kurdish-initiative-emerges-at-security-summit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012191558/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-211723-101-7-troops-killed-in-terrorist-attack.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-211723-101-7-troops-killed-in-terrorist-attack.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723114027/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/135649.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/135649.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320224104/http://en.firatnews.com/index.php?rupel=article&nuceID=1019 to http://en.firatnews.com/index.php?rupel=article&nuceID=1019
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026121337/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-247755-ak-party-won-now-kurds-win-heres-why-by-abdulla-hawez-abdulla%2A.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-247755-ak-party-won-now-kurds-win-heres-why-by-abdulla-hawez-abdulla%2A.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125105324/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-248367-chp-deputy-urges-party-to-boycott-parliament-in-protest-of-deputy-ban.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-248367-chp-deputy-urges-party-to-boycott-parliament-in-protest-of-deputy-ban.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001213344/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-20/world/world_europe_turkey-bombing_1_pkk-kurdistan-workers-party-turkish-city to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-20/world/world_europe_turkey-bombing_1_pkk-kurdistan-workers-party-turkish-city
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013051527/http://articles.cnn.com/1999-03-07/world/9903_07_turkey.kurds_1_kurdish-rebels-abdullah-ocalan-kurdistan-workers-party-pkk?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/1999-03-07/world/9903_07_turkey.kurds_1_kurdish-rebels-abdullah-ocalan-kurdistan-workers-party-pkk?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531224347/http://edoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/HALCoRe_derivate_00003560/Turkey%20and%20PKK%20terrorism.pdf to http://edoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/HALCoRe_derivate_00003560/Turkey%20and%20PKK%20terrorism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522191840/http://www.cacianalyst.org/Publications/Cornell_Orbis.htm to http://www.cacianalyst.org/Publications/Cornell_Orbis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151105231107/http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_4_tskdan_haberler/2015/tsk_haberler_77.html to http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_4_tskdan_haberler/2015/tsk_haberler_77.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130195608/http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/09/26/263678/turkey-moves-to-arrest-top-pkk-leaders/ to http://presstv.com/detail/2012/09/26/263678/turkey-moves-to-arrest-top-pkk-leaders/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816121716/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=officials-deny-der-spiegel8217s-claim-on-use-of-chemical-weapons-2010-08-13 to http://hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=officials-deny-der-spiegel8217s-claim-on-use-of-chemical-weapons-2010-08-13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220172411/http://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkeys-kurdish-tribes-call-pkk-to-leave-country-7161 to http://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkeys-kurdish-tribes-call-pkk-to-leave-country-7161
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130321170659/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/03/2013321112138974573.html to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/03/2013321112138974573.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109114114/http://todayszaman.com/news-277125-prosecutors-look-into-links-between-suspicious-army-deaths.html to http://todayszaman.com/news-277125-prosecutors-look-into-links-between-suspicious-army-deaths.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/europe/turkey-and-iraq-seek-to-end-kurdish-rebellion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Headline of the article

As a Kurd from Turkey I was a bit confused by the headline. Why does the headline refer to Kurds and not the PKK or KCK? The author(s) seem to try to justify the headline by adding YDH and MKLP like groups under the KCK, yet groups like MKLP are communist and/or marxist groups which consist mainly of Turkish people. These groups have their own article anyhow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist_insurgency_in_Turkey

Could the title please be adjust back to PKK-Turkey conflict or KCK-Turkey conflict as it was, and as it currently is in most other languages on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2501:8E80:157A:E827:F3DC:1B57 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction biased?

I have the same objection I also have with regard to the artikle PKK: The introduction only mentions Turkish human rights abuses, but has absolutely no information about human rights abuses committed by the PKK. I think this is one-sided. Chaptagai (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits by ‎46.223.67.239

Anon User, reverts the content of the following articles in a row; Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), & Turkish military operation in Afrin. It not a revert war. Mr.User200 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr.User200, no reason for this revert [18] of Oswah. He actually reverted 46.223.67.239's revert of you. 46.223.67.239's change of the Kurdish militant casualties is unsourced and possibly POV. EkoGraf (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Opss sorry. You are right clicked other edit sumarry to undo.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in introduction

Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 have died, most of whom were Kurdish civilians.

This contradicts the numbers given in the infobox. -- 95.90.223.76 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• EGM Polis Özel Harekat.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Kurdistan Workers' Party 1995.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians

@GGT: I don't think the claim is anymore valid at all. Considering the organization's latest attacks on civilians are from 2018, and there a plenty of new sources are against the claim, I recommend we either add the "alleged" word or make it sound more logical. Ferakp (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Ferakp (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm adding the Kurdish terms for the regions involved (previously only those from a Turkish POV were used), ending the use of the strange 'Kobane crisis' euphemism, and removing a dubious source used to reference estimates wildly at odds with the rest of the sources. Konli17 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Turkish pov terms? WP:COMMONNAME. Seriously? Beshogur (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of TiKKO.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Biased Much?

Incredibly biased article, even with Wiki standards of "sensitive" topics. A Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization responsible for thousands of deaths is made to look like saints fighting for a just cause, like angels of mercy. Nothing is further from the truth. I would not even know where to begin. How about a mention of their drug dealing, smuggling, kidnapping, outright high way robbery, murdering teachers and doctors, and above all carrying out an ethnic warfare against their own people and state, a democracy. Where was any of this in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.32.20 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The actual bias is in favor of Turkey. The word "genocide" isn't even to be found in this article. 108.82.55.43 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

U r so weird this genocide did happened before founding PKK OR ... are u even educated?? Hasti salah (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hpj bayrağı.png (discussion)
• Yrk bayrağı.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming of the page

Why is this not named Turkey-PKK conflict but Kurdish-Turkish conflict when there is more than 2 million ethnic kurds are living just in Istanbul? Plus many other cities as well. If there was such a conflict, how is it possible for millions of kurds to be living in western parts of Turkey?

You can't name USA-ISIS conflict as American-Arab conflict. Same logic applies for this page as well.

Already discussed in in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present)/Archive_1#Requested_move_7_January_2016, Turkey fighting also against TAK which is not part of PKK.

But if i look in discussion 2 of the users are POV pushers (banned now) Ferakp and Niele~enwiki Best name is kurdish insurgency in turkey Shadow4dark (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 02:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) → Kurdish insurgency in Turkey (1978–present) – Current name has several issues.

First one, WP:COMMONNAME vs Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) Second issue is, several kurdish tribes oppose pkk and from turkish sources but i will not add them due NPOV isues. And third issue, this name is confusing as per above sources

References

Shadow4dark (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: google.com and google.nl gives same sources Shadow4dark (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your attempt, maybe you could call it Kurdish demands for cultural freedom and democracy in Turkey? Maybe another name can be found, but this is the main conflict. Democracy and cultural freedom. By the PKK and all the parties involved. This is maybe why the article it is called like this. There already exists the article Timeline of Kurdish uprisings, maybe you can expand this article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, PKK started early as political movement but it is now an insurgency. And parts of this conflict is also called insurgency Shadow4dark (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Shadow4dark, the article is about a conflict. And politicians do now really not want to suggest an insurgency if they want to speak their language or build statue of the Lammassu in front of the municipality. They just want cultural rights. If you want, write another article only about the PKK and the Turkish Government.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you give source wich "politicians" not want to suggest this is an insurgency? Even the pro kurdish "the kurdish question" book call this an insurgency Shadow4dark (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this has spilt over into neighbouring states. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes but most in this insurgency phase Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) Shadow4dark (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about the Kurdish Turkish conflict 1978-present. If Kurdish politicians, singers, actors, etc. get harassed and/or imprisoned etc. for using their language by the Turkish Government, it is not only an insurgency. We need a wider term to address this topic, such as "conflict". In regards of the discussion between Peacemaker67 and Shadow4dark, Turkey also bombed Kurds in the 1980s in Iraq during the Iraq Iran war. Then there is also the article Kurdish Rebellions in Turkey which could be expanded.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Article Isn't Reliable

This article is written from a very biased perspective. Especially the background section. Lacks scientific objectivity.

E.g. "Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 have died, the vast majority of whom were Kurdish civilians killed by the Turkish Armed Forces." How many are killed? Where? When? A strong argument accusing an UN member state's armed forces of carrying out killings of civilian population but there's only one source to support it.

E.g. "The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for thousands of human rights abuses." The sources doesn't even mention the Kurdish-Turkish conflict.

E.g. " Many judgments are related to the systematic executions of Kurdish civilians,[120] torture,[121] forced displacements,[122] destroyed villages,[123][124][125] arbitrary arrests,[126] and the disappearing or murder of Kurdish journalists, activists and politicians.[127][128][129]" Most of the sources doesn't even mention Kurdish-Turkish conflict. And sources are not enough to support the statements which presented. For example source [130] leads to a book in which there's no scientific work. A portion from the book's back cover sums up all I said about this sentence; "His storytellers offer us an oral history..."

I'm not going to argue more. Someone who can read will be able to understand the rest. For a long time I found Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I guess "free" encyclopedia is not a good idea after all.

--BeastFromWater (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

commanders

Do we want all these commanders who have no any role in this conflict? Shadow4dark (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Sources".

What on absolute earth are absolutely any of these sources? All of these sources are nonsense, they absolutely fail at being Verifiable and absolutely fail on NPOV. These articles are written by Daily Sabbah a Pro-Turkish Government organization that states whatever AKP Party wants, and is known to have extreme issues with Bias, Daily Sabbah can never used for this of course a Pro-Erdogan News source is saying this, I have no idea how this managed to be undedected for so long but its absurd these sources fail expect for Aval News which states that "Number of PKK members in Turkey dropped to 486 - interior minister", not only this but Turkey knows that there is exactly "486" PKK Fighters? How? That is so absurd. The PKK is known to be extremely secretive and more importantly it is impossible to know the exact number of number of PKK members as PKK members transition from daily life and Guerilla activities very fluidly, this smells of such propaganda. This entire statement are absolutely absurd.

https://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2020/01/12/turkey-gradually-erasing-terrorism-threat-interior-minister-says-only-500-pkk-terrorists-left-at-most https://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2019/11/27/only-500-pkk-terrorists-left-in-turkey-after-successful-operations-soylu-says https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-pkk/number-pkk-members-turkey-dropped-486-interior-minister Vallee01 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We use both pov sources like pro pkk rudaw and pro government source to balance it. And these source are not blacklisted in wikipedia. And these old numbers from pkk is also Turkish claim , go look it. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rudaw Media Network might be Kurdish, but it's definitely not pro-PKK. It's pro-KDP. Konli17 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the press freedom in Turkey, no pro-gov source is a good source for massacres on Kurds. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless it supported by multiple source it should be used unless it is deprecated source. Also add better source tag do not delete it next time, it is messed up with unsourced content now. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I only removed an event with a lesser amount of victims, (The article is about a whole civil war, not a close up of an attack) in the rest of the events I added a citation needed tag which I also wrote in the edit summary. There is also the article Timeline of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) in which some of the events may be included if a source is found.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hpj bayrağı.png (discussion)
• Yrk bayrağı.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)