This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency (2015–present) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 PKK rebellion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest that we delete some of the detailed reports of the day-to-day basis timeline of what has happened in the conflict as these edits have not been made for every single day, therefore it gives a false premise of a lack of activities during the day not mentioned. This is untrue it is just the case that editors haven't had the time to make these edits and therefore gives the page a feeling of inaccuracy. Instead we should just include key or significant events. Prohibited Area ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 PKK rebellion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cnn":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors and users,
I see that some sources are Turkish news media. The problem is that the Turkish government is known to be a very harsh against Kurds, journalists and media etc. Limited freedom of speech, and things like pool media or partisan media are forbidden. How should we deal with such sources? "pool media" that supports AKP government. Aren't Turkish mainstream media per definition unreliable as source due to the heavy control by the Turkish state? Number of PKK members killed in two months is wrong. And sources from Turkish government is not reliable. For example, "Turkish land forces have fired nearly 500 times on Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq, killing almost '200' militants in response to a suicide bombing in Istanbul which killed 10 German tourists, Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu said on Thursday." Also these numbers are very fantastic. Do you believe it? Bruskom talk to me 19:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/hpg-releases-balance-sheet-of-war-for-2015
How can this be considered as a reliable source?
"Gang members killed in Shengal and Kirkuk: 2736"
"41 guerrillas fell martyr during the heroic resistance for the liberation of Shengal."
So PKK has a kill / death ratio of 67 when they're fighting against ISIS according to ANF news, which by the way is owned by the PKK.
"Soldiers killed in actions and clashes: 1250"
"Police killed: 132"
"Special operation members killed: 162"
"Armored vehicles destroyed and burned: 132" ------ Just wow.
"Cobra helicopters downed: 3" ------ I really like this one.
"Drones downed: 3" ------ I really like this one too.
"Guerrillas martyred: 220"
And when PKK is fighting Turkey it has they kill 7 soldiers / police for each of their casualties. This report beyond untrustworthy. Patetez ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to invite editors on discussion over the need to set Kurdish–Turkish conflict general sanctions due to increased edit-warring on pages concerning Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). GreyShark ( dibra) 07:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present); both presented options have lots of support, but this one appears to have slightly more. If someone cares they can now present a case for the other. ( non-admin closure) Dicklyon ( talk) 05:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
PKK rebellion (2015–present) →
Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present) or →
Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) – Suggested titles better represents content of page. "Rebellion" only a possible trigger of renewed fighting, not ongoing.
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
PKK rebellion (2015–present). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey.aspx
This is ICG's page about Turkey and as you can see they've released only 2 articles about the recent Turkey-PKK conflict.
First one: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey/b077-a-sisyphean-task-resuming-turkey-pkk-peace-talks.aspx - Release date: 17 Dec 2015
And the second one: 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 - Release date: 17 Mar 2016
You can read the full reports and see that none of these reports mention anything about the PKK's casualties. That's why that WSJ can not be used as a sourced information (because there aren't sources backing up that editorial piece) and it needs to be removed. -- Patetez ( talk) 16:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Patetez: WP policy is pretty clear about this. Any information that is properly sourced with a reliable source can be placed. The reliability of WSJ has never been in question. The two direct reports from the Crisis Group may not contain the figure, but there is no evidence the WSJ was basing the figure on those two specific reports. As far as we know the WSJ asked the Crisis Group for the figure directly and they told them. Such kind of speculation can be seen as Original Research (OR) which is not permitted per WP policy. Also, the WSJ report, compared to the Crisis Group source, is secondary. Wikipedia makes an emphasis on the usage of secondary sources. Finally, this report [1] (in its detailed form) states 350 security forces and 250 civilians have died (600 people). However, if you look a the same report (in its quick recap form) here [2] you will see they say 900 have died overall. Since 600 of those are civilians and security forces, per WP: CALC policy, its safe to assume 300 are militants. You are more than welcome to take the question of the reliability of WSJ as a source at an administrator noticeboard, as per policy. Thank you for your diligence, cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: The first report is 20 pages long and the second report is 23 pages long. Don't you think that ICG would have mentioned PKK's casualties in their full report if they had any type of good knowledge about PKK's casualties? The WSJ article also says "at least" 300 PKK militants were killed not "exactly" 300. Your edit makes it look like exactly 300 militants were killed.
@ Patetez: I say again, first, the WSJ does not say they took the info from those two reports, instead that it came from the Crisis Group (which could even mean that they simply asked them directly). Second, when looking at this link [3] (which you yourself cited) it clearly says and I quote Around 900 people, including 350 members of the security forces. Looking at the larger version of the report it also identifies another 250 of the dead as civilians. Per WP: CALC we can estimate 300 dead are militants (which is backed up by the WSJ which explicitly states this). If you were worried that us simply putting 300 implies it to be an exact number than this can be easily remedied that we put the insignia that the number is approximate. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: The claim you bring forward on the 5000+ death toll is illegitimate, Erdogan said that 5359 had either been killed, wounded or captured while non-Turkish media have been exclaiming the pure death toll of the PKK to be at 5000+ according to Erdogan. I thought it would be understood that the death toll range is from 5000 to 5359 for the Turkish claim, but clearly it has not been. Furthermore you are removing directly sourced content of the ICG claim and sourcing content from a 3rd party article which cannot even be read to verify the 300 you threw out their due to paid subscription requirements. Since ICG itself has not stated an PKK death toll estimate don't you think it should be removed and the Turkish claim updated to 5,000+Â ? In addition to that the 300 whom non-subscribers cannot read anyway in order to verify may be a simple typo error wanting to mention 3,000 instead which sounds much more legitimate. An Armed Force as matured against Kurdish insurgency through-out a 38 year conflict such as Turkey's & whom benefits from standardized professional NATO training & technology giving more losses to an militant organization sounds illogical. TuAF air strikes alone killed hundreds of militants let alone the ground operations. The 300 to me sounds like a typo referencing 3,000 as I have emailed the publisher & writer of the articles to clear things up (though I doubt I will get a response). I am changing the article claim of the Turkish side to 5000+ and removing the 300 until I hear back from the WSJ writer. Feel free to email him yourself at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com -- Berkantagan ( talk) 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: As we cannot agree on this issue i'm willing to discontinue this back and forth undoing's but let me point out at the 1250 death toll given by the Turkish military since the start of the conflict is limited to the Nusaybin, Dargecit, Silvan, Sur, Silopi, Cizre, Idil, Varto & Sirnak districts of the Mardin, Diyarbakir, Sirnak & Mus provinces [9] and these do not include provinces like Hakkari, Yuksekova, Van & Siirt within Turkey let alone airstrikes into Qandil, Zap and other areas of Northern Iraq not to mention small teams of special forces forays in 2015 [10] They do not represent the entire conflict and makes it seem as if this includes every PKK militant killed within the PKK rebellion (for the Turkish claim) which is not the case. Hakkari, a provence not mentioned in the 1250 toll was a host to massive operations like the 2015-16 Hakkari assault killing 119 militants. [11] [12] I am surprised you overlooked this detail. -- Berkantagan ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: An entirely new 5,000 killed (pure death toll) was presented yesterday by a pro-Turkish article and was stated as a 'killed" by a Bloomberg article earlier this week. I hope you see this before undoing my edits which are really getting redundant for this article. You can see them both here. [13] [14] Berkantagan ( talk) 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Majority of destroyed villages and displaced are result of acts of Turkish government. The Kurdish-Turkish conflict already contains a lot of sources from top independent organizations and publications. One wrong thing about the statement is that reports related to those villages and displaced people are mentioned in Kurdish-Turkish conflict not in PKK-Turkey conflicts even though majority of those events happened due to PKK-Turkey conflict. However, still a lot of villages and displaced people are not related to the PKK in those reports so using all displaced people and villages details and explaining it with PKK-Turkey conflict is wrong. Also, it's not explicitly related to this since those who are in towns and villages are YDG-H and YPS groups, not the PKK. There is still no evidence that PKK is there, both independent international organizations and PKK deny their involvement in this conflict. Ferakp ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The name of the article is PKK rebellion even though the PKK is not involved in the conflict. The YPS, YDG-H and youth organizations are involved but not the PKK. Using PKK rebellion needs strong and reliable sources. If the PKK doesn't accept its involvement in this rebellion and also international organizations and sources mention that connection between those youth organizations and the PKK is highly disputed then we can't simply use PKK rebellion here. Starting to collect sources for request. All opinions and critics are welcome. Ferakp ( talk) 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Ferakp: The PKK represent a small minority of Kurds and this page is not about society vs society type of article. 20-25% of Turkey's population is ethnically Kurdish and the PKK represent a small separatist and ethnically-nationalist leftist leaning group of Kurds. Aside from the fact that their is already a page named Kurdish-Turkish representing the whole scope of the conflict if this not at all in-line with Wiki's neutrality policy. If you disagree then why does the Turkish security forces have Kurds amongst their ranks and why are they targeting PKK and PKK off-shoot groups rather than all Kurds? If you insist on a name change so much you can change it to Turkey-PKK conflict (2015-Present) but leave the Kurds as a society out of this bias. Berkantagan ( talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I seriously don't know why this article has been created. There is nothing new in this article, it mainly a list of attacks, which belong to Timeline of the Turkey–PKK conflict and more details which are already in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. The conflict is continuing and nothing has changed, just a few more groups has emerged.
I highly recommend that we merge this article with the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. There is simply no reasons why this article should be separated from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict article. The most interesting thing is that this article was created after we added more information to the "Abuses by Turkish side" section of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict and fixed casualty numbers of the infobox. Ferakp ( talk) 04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Event is notable enough and is considered a totally new phase of the overall conflict. However, you are right in the fact that the article is mainly a list of attacks. Article needs to be majorly restructured to be more encyclopedic in nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article states: "285 civilians killed (Turkish claim)"
If you look at the source you will see that the turkish number of civilian death is regarding the total loss of civilian lifes because of terrorist activities. It explicitly includes civilians killed by ISIS, DHKP-C and MLKP. This fact should be added.
source: http://aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/265-gunde-5-bin-359-terorist-etkisiz-hale-getirildi/545181
Gibgasachi ( talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation of militant deaths is limited by the PKK's practice, for unknown reasons, to announce the names of dead militants weeks, months, or even years after they are killed in fighting, adding a significant delay to the PKK militant casualty count.
In May 2016, military sources claimed to the Turkish press that over 7,000 PKK militants had been killed since July 2015. Crisis Group only counts casualties which can be confirmed through its open-source methodology, and its numbers should not be seen as a refutation of casualty claims made by the Turkish government. Needbrains ( talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The source [1] doesn't support claim that Bahoz Erdal is the leader of TAK, it just says some Turkish analysts claim that he is the leader of TAK, which is in conflict with a numerous of other sources that show Bahoz Erdal as a leader of PKK's armed wing, not the TAK. Also, the source which was used was from 2011. Ferakp ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Neutralized the head section and edited some misinterpreted/falsified paragraphs. The ceasefire was declared before the Ankara bombings. Ferakp ( talk) 05:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has multiple sections that are not written using
WP:NPOV:
1. On 4 October, Hacı Lokman Birlik, brother in law of HDP MP Leyla Birlik, a known political PKK affiliate was killed by Turkish security forces
This is clearly biased claim, the write has tried to write it using negative point of view and cherry picking. It's not reflecting the truth and there are plenty of other sources, such as
[15] that are against the claim.
2. The article is full of incidents that are directly from Turkish sources and cherry picking has been used to describe them. None of them have been written neutrally and most of them don't belong to the article.
/
3. In many cases, civilian casualties have been ignored and pro-government sources are used to support claims that are written. Ferakp ( talk) 06:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This article on the casualties almost only uses Turkish popular media sources. It is simply not trustworthy, Kurdish and neutral sources must be added to balance it out. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.183.121.138 (
talk)
12:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Who are Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels? (BBC) addition - Pivox ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The quality of this article could be much better if it described the battles that took place in the cities. The turkish version of this page has most of the needed info. Needbrains ( talk) 20:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we add a hatlink to 2019 Rojava offensive; Googling "Turkey attack on Kurds," among other things, directs a user to this page. Most viewers, at this point in time, are likely looking for the ongoing offensive. I think a clarifying link at the top would help. anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get to a consensus on the casualties, as I have done so in the Kurdish-Turkish 1978-present article. There I have supported the idea that only casualties of commanders, leaders or of attacks where more as 5 were killed should be mentioned. If no one opposes I'll start to remove mentions about 1 soldier/PKK member died by tomorrow. Then I'll come back here to ask for more comments, just as I have done also at the 1978-present talk page. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I see the hurriyet daily news used as a citation, I am fairly new to this still so forgive me, but it seems that much like the daily sabah on these issues it is not a good source of information, for similar reasons. Should this resource be shied away from using if others can be found to be available, such as this article being used in the most recent edit. SP00KY talk 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency (2015–present) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 PKK rebellion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest that we delete some of the detailed reports of the day-to-day basis timeline of what has happened in the conflict as these edits have not been made for every single day, therefore it gives a false premise of a lack of activities during the day not mentioned. This is untrue it is just the case that editors haven't had the time to make these edits and therefore gives the page a feeling of inaccuracy. Instead we should just include key or significant events. Prohibited Area ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 PKK rebellion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cnn":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors and users,
I see that some sources are Turkish news media. The problem is that the Turkish government is known to be a very harsh against Kurds, journalists and media etc. Limited freedom of speech, and things like pool media or partisan media are forbidden. How should we deal with such sources? "pool media" that supports AKP government. Aren't Turkish mainstream media per definition unreliable as source due to the heavy control by the Turkish state? Number of PKK members killed in two months is wrong. And sources from Turkish government is not reliable. For example, "Turkish land forces have fired nearly 500 times on Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq, killing almost '200' militants in response to a suicide bombing in Istanbul which killed 10 German tourists, Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu said on Thursday." Also these numbers are very fantastic. Do you believe it? Bruskom talk to me 19:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/hpg-releases-balance-sheet-of-war-for-2015
How can this be considered as a reliable source?
"Gang members killed in Shengal and Kirkuk: 2736"
"41 guerrillas fell martyr during the heroic resistance for the liberation of Shengal."
So PKK has a kill / death ratio of 67 when they're fighting against ISIS according to ANF news, which by the way is owned by the PKK.
"Soldiers killed in actions and clashes: 1250"
"Police killed: 132"
"Special operation members killed: 162"
"Armored vehicles destroyed and burned: 132" ------ Just wow.
"Cobra helicopters downed: 3" ------ I really like this one.
"Drones downed: 3" ------ I really like this one too.
"Guerrillas martyred: 220"
And when PKK is fighting Turkey it has they kill 7 soldiers / police for each of their casualties. This report beyond untrustworthy. Patetez ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to invite editors on discussion over the need to set Kurdish–Turkish conflict general sanctions due to increased edit-warring on pages concerning Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). GreyShark ( dibra) 07:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present); both presented options have lots of support, but this one appears to have slightly more. If someone cares they can now present a case for the other. ( non-admin closure) Dicklyon ( talk) 05:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
PKK rebellion (2015–present) →
Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present) or →
Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) – Suggested titles better represents content of page. "Rebellion" only a possible trigger of renewed fighting, not ongoing.
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
PKK rebellion (2015–present). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey.aspx
This is ICG's page about Turkey and as you can see they've released only 2 articles about the recent Turkey-PKK conflict.
First one: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/turkey/b077-a-sisyphean-task-resuming-turkey-pkk-peace-talks.aspx - Release date: 17 Dec 2015
And the second one: 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 - Release date: 17 Mar 2016
You can read the full reports and see that none of these reports mention anything about the PKK's casualties. That's why that WSJ can not be used as a sourced information (because there aren't sources backing up that editorial piece) and it needs to be removed. -- Patetez ( talk) 16:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Patetez: WP policy is pretty clear about this. Any information that is properly sourced with a reliable source can be placed. The reliability of WSJ has never been in question. The two direct reports from the Crisis Group may not contain the figure, but there is no evidence the WSJ was basing the figure on those two specific reports. As far as we know the WSJ asked the Crisis Group for the figure directly and they told them. Such kind of speculation can be seen as Original Research (OR) which is not permitted per WP policy. Also, the WSJ report, compared to the Crisis Group source, is secondary. Wikipedia makes an emphasis on the usage of secondary sources. Finally, this report [1] (in its detailed form) states 350 security forces and 250 civilians have died (600 people). However, if you look a the same report (in its quick recap form) here [2] you will see they say 900 have died overall. Since 600 of those are civilians and security forces, per WP: CALC policy, its safe to assume 300 are militants. You are more than welcome to take the question of the reliability of WSJ as a source at an administrator noticeboard, as per policy. Thank you for your diligence, cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: The first report is 20 pages long and the second report is 23 pages long. Don't you think that ICG would have mentioned PKK's casualties in their full report if they had any type of good knowledge about PKK's casualties? The WSJ article also says "at least" 300 PKK militants were killed not "exactly" 300. Your edit makes it look like exactly 300 militants were killed.
@ Patetez: I say again, first, the WSJ does not say they took the info from those two reports, instead that it came from the Crisis Group (which could even mean that they simply asked them directly). Second, when looking at this link [3] (which you yourself cited) it clearly says and I quote Around 900 people, including 350 members of the security forces. Looking at the larger version of the report it also identifies another 250 of the dead as civilians. Per WP: CALC we can estimate 300 dead are militants (which is backed up by the WSJ which explicitly states this). If you were worried that us simply putting 300 implies it to be an exact number than this can be easily remedied that we put the insignia that the number is approximate. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: The claim you bring forward on the 5000+ death toll is illegitimate, Erdogan said that 5359 had either been killed, wounded or captured while non-Turkish media have been exclaiming the pure death toll of the PKK to be at 5000+ according to Erdogan. I thought it would be understood that the death toll range is from 5000 to 5359 for the Turkish claim, but clearly it has not been. Furthermore you are removing directly sourced content of the ICG claim and sourcing content from a 3rd party article which cannot even be read to verify the 300 you threw out their due to paid subscription requirements. Since ICG itself has not stated an PKK death toll estimate don't you think it should be removed and the Turkish claim updated to 5,000+Â ? In addition to that the 300 whom non-subscribers cannot read anyway in order to verify may be a simple typo error wanting to mention 3,000 instead which sounds much more legitimate. An Armed Force as matured against Kurdish insurgency through-out a 38 year conflict such as Turkey's & whom benefits from standardized professional NATO training & technology giving more losses to an militant organization sounds illogical. TuAF air strikes alone killed hundreds of militants let alone the ground operations. The 300 to me sounds like a typo referencing 3,000 as I have emailed the publisher & writer of the articles to clear things up (though I doubt I will get a response). I am changing the article claim of the Turkish side to 5000+ and removing the 300 until I hear back from the WSJ writer. Feel free to email him yourself at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com -- Berkantagan ( talk) 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: As we cannot agree on this issue i'm willing to discontinue this back and forth undoing's but let me point out at the 1250 death toll given by the Turkish military since the start of the conflict is limited to the Nusaybin, Dargecit, Silvan, Sur, Silopi, Cizre, Idil, Varto & Sirnak districts of the Mardin, Diyarbakir, Sirnak & Mus provinces [9] and these do not include provinces like Hakkari, Yuksekova, Van & Siirt within Turkey let alone airstrikes into Qandil, Zap and other areas of Northern Iraq not to mention small teams of special forces forays in 2015 [10] They do not represent the entire conflict and makes it seem as if this includes every PKK militant killed within the PKK rebellion (for the Turkish claim) which is not the case. Hakkari, a provence not mentioned in the 1250 toll was a host to massive operations like the 2015-16 Hakkari assault killing 119 militants. [11] [12] I am surprised you overlooked this detail. -- Berkantagan ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: An entirely new 5,000 killed (pure death toll) was presented yesterday by a pro-Turkish article and was stated as a 'killed" by a Bloomberg article earlier this week. I hope you see this before undoing my edits which are really getting redundant for this article. You can see them both here. [13] [14] Berkantagan ( talk) 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Majority of destroyed villages and displaced are result of acts of Turkish government. The Kurdish-Turkish conflict already contains a lot of sources from top independent organizations and publications. One wrong thing about the statement is that reports related to those villages and displaced people are mentioned in Kurdish-Turkish conflict not in PKK-Turkey conflicts even though majority of those events happened due to PKK-Turkey conflict. However, still a lot of villages and displaced people are not related to the PKK in those reports so using all displaced people and villages details and explaining it with PKK-Turkey conflict is wrong. Also, it's not explicitly related to this since those who are in towns and villages are YDG-H and YPS groups, not the PKK. There is still no evidence that PKK is there, both independent international organizations and PKK deny their involvement in this conflict. Ferakp ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The name of the article is PKK rebellion even though the PKK is not involved in the conflict. The YPS, YDG-H and youth organizations are involved but not the PKK. Using PKK rebellion needs strong and reliable sources. If the PKK doesn't accept its involvement in this rebellion and also international organizations and sources mention that connection between those youth organizations and the PKK is highly disputed then we can't simply use PKK rebellion here. Starting to collect sources for request. All opinions and critics are welcome. Ferakp ( talk) 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Ferakp: The PKK represent a small minority of Kurds and this page is not about society vs society type of article. 20-25% of Turkey's population is ethnically Kurdish and the PKK represent a small separatist and ethnically-nationalist leftist leaning group of Kurds. Aside from the fact that their is already a page named Kurdish-Turkish representing the whole scope of the conflict if this not at all in-line with Wiki's neutrality policy. If you disagree then why does the Turkish security forces have Kurds amongst their ranks and why are they targeting PKK and PKK off-shoot groups rather than all Kurds? If you insist on a name change so much you can change it to Turkey-PKK conflict (2015-Present) but leave the Kurds as a society out of this bias. Berkantagan ( talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I seriously don't know why this article has been created. There is nothing new in this article, it mainly a list of attacks, which belong to Timeline of the Turkey–PKK conflict and more details which are already in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. The conflict is continuing and nothing has changed, just a few more groups has emerged.
I highly recommend that we merge this article with the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. There is simply no reasons why this article should be separated from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict article. The most interesting thing is that this article was created after we added more information to the "Abuses by Turkish side" section of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict and fixed casualty numbers of the infobox. Ferakp ( talk) 04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Event is notable enough and is considered a totally new phase of the overall conflict. However, you are right in the fact that the article is mainly a list of attacks. Article needs to be majorly restructured to be more encyclopedic in nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 09:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article states: "285 civilians killed (Turkish claim)"
If you look at the source you will see that the turkish number of civilian death is regarding the total loss of civilian lifes because of terrorist activities. It explicitly includes civilians killed by ISIS, DHKP-C and MLKP. This fact should be added.
source: http://aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/265-gunde-5-bin-359-terorist-etkisiz-hale-getirildi/545181
Gibgasachi ( talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation of militant deaths is limited by the PKK's practice, for unknown reasons, to announce the names of dead militants weeks, months, or even years after they are killed in fighting, adding a significant delay to the PKK militant casualty count.
In May 2016, military sources claimed to the Turkish press that over 7,000 PKK militants had been killed since July 2015. Crisis Group only counts casualties which can be confirmed through its open-source methodology, and its numbers should not be seen as a refutation of casualty claims made by the Turkish government. Needbrains ( talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The source [1] doesn't support claim that Bahoz Erdal is the leader of TAK, it just says some Turkish analysts claim that he is the leader of TAK, which is in conflict with a numerous of other sources that show Bahoz Erdal as a leader of PKK's armed wing, not the TAK. Also, the source which was used was from 2011. Ferakp ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Neutralized the head section and edited some misinterpreted/falsified paragraphs. The ceasefire was declared before the Ankara bombings. Ferakp ( talk) 05:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has multiple sections that are not written using
WP:NPOV:
1. On 4 October, Hacı Lokman Birlik, brother in law of HDP MP Leyla Birlik, a known political PKK affiliate was killed by Turkish security forces
This is clearly biased claim, the write has tried to write it using negative point of view and cherry picking. It's not reflecting the truth and there are plenty of other sources, such as
[15] that are against the claim.
2. The article is full of incidents that are directly from Turkish sources and cherry picking has been used to describe them. None of them have been written neutrally and most of them don't belong to the article.
/
3. In many cases, civilian casualties have been ignored and pro-government sources are used to support claims that are written. Ferakp ( talk) 06:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This article on the casualties almost only uses Turkish popular media sources. It is simply not trustworthy, Kurdish and neutral sources must be added to balance it out. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.183.121.138 (
talk)
12:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Who are Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels? (BBC) addition - Pivox ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The quality of this article could be much better if it described the battles that took place in the cities. The turkish version of this page has most of the needed info. Needbrains ( talk) 20:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we add a hatlink to 2019 Rojava offensive; Googling "Turkey attack on Kurds," among other things, directs a user to this page. Most viewers, at this point in time, are likely looking for the ongoing offensive. I think a clarifying link at the top would help. anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get to a consensus on the casualties, as I have done so in the Kurdish-Turkish 1978-present article. There I have supported the idea that only casualties of commanders, leaders or of attacks where more as 5 were killed should be mentioned. If no one opposes I'll start to remove mentions about 1 soldier/PKK member died by tomorrow. Then I'll come back here to ask for more comments, just as I have done also at the 1978-present talk page. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I see the hurriyet daily news used as a citation, I am fairly new to this still so forgive me, but it seems that much like the daily sabah on these issues it is not a good source of information, for similar reasons. Should this resource be shied away from using if others can be found to be available, such as this article being used in the most recent edit. SP00KY talk 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)