Talk:Timeline of the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency (2015–present)

Orphaned references in 2015 PKK rebellion
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": From Operation Martyr Yalçın:  From 2015 Suruç bombing:  

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 ⚡ 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Organisation of Page
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 think deletion is not a good solution, but rather merging into Timeline of the Turkey-PKK conflict article. This is of course, in case you are replacing the current structure with a good overall conflict developments over the past 2 months.GreyShark (dibra) 20:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2015 PKK rebellion
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": From February 1999 Kurdish protests: CNN Kurds storm UNHCR headquarters; new protests erupt From Necip Torumtay:  From 2015 Ankara bombings:  From 2010 Istanbul bombing:  

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 ⚡ 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish media, unreliable sources
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 Davutoğlu said on Thursday." Also these numbers are very fantastic. Do you believe it? <b style="color:navy">Bruskom </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia guidelines - no problem to include those as long as they are reliable (professional).GreyShark (dibra) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

PKK owned media and unreliable sources.
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)
 * Firat News doesn't look a very professional source - they do show address and contact, so we can verify who stands behind it. However, we need an indication that there is an editorial board at the newspaper, which i cannot find. Still, maybe OK to refer to it as pro-Kurdish source stating "claimed by Firat News" in my opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the need of sanctions on Kurdish–Turkish conflict topic
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)

Requested move 12 March 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)


 * This article being a part of the global Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) it should be described in then same way, i.e. Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present). Wykx  (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Added Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) to suggested new titles. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support rename, preferably to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) Clearly, this is part of an ongoing, two-sided conflict. To say the least, the Turkish government played its role in escalating the conflict into what could just as well be described as a low-intensity Civil War. So if it ever was, this particular period clearly isn't appropriately described as yet another "PKK rebellion". --PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - it would become too much confusing having another article named "Kurdish–Turkish conflict" and i don't see a sufficient reasons to rename to Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present).GreyShark (dibra) 21:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move This conflict is a part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict so then name should be related to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Supporting PanchoS, Wykx and Spirit Ethanol. Do you allow me to change the request name to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict (2015-present)?Ferakp (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The option → Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) is already presented with majority support so far. Since there is one opposing person, best to leave it to closing admin. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) is the superior proposal not just because it has majority support. More importantly, while this particular period represents a particular epoch within the whole Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), neither of the two articles makes the case why this particular epoch would be fundamentally different from earlier ones. It has not even been asserted that the current epoch indeed is widely referred to as a "PKK rebellion" rather than a continuation of the longstanding, two-sided conflict. --PanchoS (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The new requested title is Kurdish-Turkish conflict (2015-present). Changed the requested name after we all accepted it. What you think now? Ferakp (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't edit someone else's comments, option already presented in request details. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it easy. I think only updated the requested move badge in line with your above comment which can only be interpreted as supporting the later proposed variant.


 * Agree with PacnhoS, I tried to help. You have suggested PKK-Turkey conflict but there is no sense to use it. I support Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present). I changed to the requested title to what we all are talking here. At this moment, the requested title is PKK-Turkey conflict and I do not support it. What you think about the title, do you support Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) or PKK-Turkey conflict (2015-present)? This request has been here since 12.03.2016 and nothing has changed, going to ask some admins for help.Ferakp (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support rename, for Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present) This conflict is being fought between KCK organizations and Turkey. Here are some sources that uses Turkey-PKK Conflict: 1- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35424525 2- http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-pkk-conflict-killed-162-civilians-august-rights-group-says-2258153 3- 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 (This one is a perfect source because it is being used at the casualties section too) 4- http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-pkk-conflict-clashes-in-southeast/av-19008732 5- http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/contents/articles/originals/2015/11/iraqi-kurdistan-turkey-akp-pkk-conflict.html 6- http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/cizre-front-lines-turkey-pkk-conflict-150806064900572.html 7- http://www.iran-daily.com/News/134733.html --Patetez (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present) or Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) which are the most neutral titles about the topic.Cavarrone 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on PKK rebellion (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160205173804/http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/one-civilian-and-one-soldier-killed-in-silopi to http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/one-civilian-and-one-soldier-killed-in-silopi
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160205164548/http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/hpg-over-30-police-killed-in-cinar-action to http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/hpg-over-30-police-killed-in-cinar-action
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160204160037/http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/cameraman-shot-in-cizre-we-were-battered-and-dragged-on-the-ground to http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/cameraman-shot-in-cizre-we-were-battered-and-dragged-on-the-ground

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WSJ's "editorial" article and sourcing an ICG report about the PKK casualties
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)

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 (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 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)

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.

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 (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)
 * I have added the sign. EkoGraf (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with EkoGraf.GreyShark (dibra) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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+ ? 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)


 * First, if you read your own talk page, I already told you non-Turkish sources incorrectly cited him of claiming 5,000 dead, when he was actually referring to all types of losses among the PKK. Plus this news story (in english) reports on the miss-interpretation of what Erdogan said. Additionally, you have this  english-speaking source (from 3 days ago) saying Last week, Mr Erdogan said that over 5,000 PKK fighters had been “killed, wounded or captured” over the past eight months.. As for the ICG, I refer you to what was discussed in this section above and your own talk page. If it was a problem for you as a non-subscriber here is another copy of the same story  clearly stating More than 350 members of Turkey's security forces, at least 300 Kurdish militants and more than 200 civilians have been killed since July, according to the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit group that analyzes global conflicts. Your speculation of it being a typo and about the Turkish Armed Forces capabilities is considered unsourced original research by Wikipedia and is strictly prohibited. Read WP:OR. I think editor  can also explain you WP policy in this regard. Furthermore, as was discussed above and I told you on your talk page, when looking at this link  (directly from the ICG) 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). This issue had already been discussed at the talk page (please look it up) and, per WP policy of citing secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) as the WSJ, editors were in agreement that its clearly cited that per the ICG 300 PKK died. If you had doubts about WSJ than I hope that this BBC report, which is also citing the ICG for a figure of 300 PKK dead, is enough to satisfy you. Cheers. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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  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  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. I am surprised you overlooked this detail. --Berkantagan (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you pointed out they did not mention Hakkari, Yuksekova, Van & Siirt, (which I did not notice before) I will gladly remove the 1,250 figure. EkoGraf (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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.       Berkantagan (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Displaced and destroyed villages.
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)
 * PKK is definitely involved in this conflict. Here is the official website of HPG (the armed wing of PKK). In this website the PKK announces their killed fighters.
 * http://www.hpg-sehit.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=43&Itemid=138 This is the list for 2016.
 * http://www.hpg-sehit.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=42&Itemid=137 And this is the 2015 list. And as you can see there are a lot of fighters who have died in Turkish provinces.


 * PKK is continuing its own conflict, the PKK-Turkey conflict. YPS and YDG-H have joined the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. This article is confusing, the title is PKK rebellion but the content is mainly related to the conflict between all Kurdish groups and Turkey. This simply means that this article is a part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. This is why name should be related to that. Is there any reason why you don't think the article is not related to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict?Ferakp (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to changing name of the article.
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)
 * I strongly agree, please see rename section above, suggestion to Turkish–Kurdish conflict an option. Your opinion most welcome. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that because The YPS and the YDG-H takes it's orders from the PKK. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwe4msjHCXs
 * Also the vast majority of Turkish Kurdistan isn't affected by this conflict. Provinces such as Van, Agri, Mush, Bingol, Bitlis, Sanliurfa, Siirt, Adiyaman, Igdir and etc. aren't affected by this conflict. --Patetez (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Youtube is not a source and according to numerous sources, relation between them is disputed. Changing name to for example Kurdish rebellion doesn't mean that all Kurds and their cities have to be in the conflict, just like the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. No reliable and strong source for using PKK rebellion name. If you think the name should stay, please find reliable sources that it is really called as a PKK rebellion. See WP:RS. Ferakp (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's video that was made by the Vice News. https://news.vice.com/video/pkk-youth-fighting-for-kurdish-neighborhoods Here you go this isn't youtube. YDG-H fighters clearly say that they take their orders from the PKK in that video. And I'm actually fine with changing the title to "Turkey-PKK Conflict (2015-present)". Here are some sources that uses Turkey-PKK Conflict: 1- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35424525 2- http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-pkk-conflict-killed-162-civilians-august-rights-group-says-2258153 3- 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 (This one is a perfect source) 4- http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-pkk-conflict-clashes-in-southeast/av-19008732 5- http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/contents/articles/originals/2015/11/iraqi-kurdistan-turkey-akp-pkk-conflict.html 6- http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/cizre-front-lines-turkey-pkk-conflict-150806064900572.html 7- http://www.iran-daily.com/News/134733.html --Patetez (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is separated from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict for some reason (I don't know why?). It is unlikely that the name could be changed to Turkey-PKK conflict, there is no reason to use it here or at least I don't know any reasons. The content of this article is a far away from the Turkey-PKK conflict. Your source is neither reliable nor strong source. I have another sources that say relation between the PKK and YDGH-H and YPS is disputed. That will be against your source, not even mentioning that you still need sources for YPS, YPS-jin and TAK to prove that the rebellion is PKK rebellion. Ferakp (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost all sources support that this is a part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Going to request for changing name to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict.Ferakp (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "This article is separated from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict for some reason (I don't know why?)". That's because this page was created before the name change in that other page. "Turkey-PKK conflict" and "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" are both accepted by tons of different media outlets and academicians. That's why the name change in that other page was totally unnecessary. Also what do you mean by saying my sources are not reliable nor strong? 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 How is this not a strong source? This source is used in the casualties section and it is totally fine. And it uses "Turkey-PKK Conflict" instead of "Turkish-Kurdish Conflict". --Patetez (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest I haven't seen such group before. However, I didn't have to even read a few rows of their report and I found they are biased. No independent organization say that specific group is a international terrorist organization if the organization isn't international terrorist organization. So, simply the PKK is not in the terrorist list of the UN which means it's not international terrorist organization. Your source already lost its reliability. Ferakp (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ICG is a perfectly fine source. Both and  agrees with me because that source is also being used at the casualties section. --Patetez (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "ICG is a perfectly fine source" I don't think it is a perfectly fine source. It should be independent, but it's not and this exactly makes it not be a reliable source. Now, I am working with other sections. About GreyShark and EkoGraf are known names for me from previous "clashes". I already know their replies. ( No offense :D )Ferakp (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well if you are not fine with ICG's report you'd have to first remove it as a source from the casualties section of this page. Since you said it's not a good source at all. --Patetez (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ICG is an independent organisation and thus it is a perfectly fine source as Patetez says. However, in regards to the name of the article, weather a source is fine or not doesn't really matter for Wikipedia. We name an article/event per the Common name policy. We check what name is the most common name that is used by reliable sources. So check that first please. PS Patetez, the casualties issue is settled. We used as a source the WSJ (secondary source) which is citing the ICG. So everything is properly sourced. EkoGraf (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * This is the Kurdish-Turkish conflict and it is mentioned in many sources, including publications by experts. The PKK is just a one of those groups who fight there, not the only one and thus you can't say that this is the conflict between the PKK and Turkish government. It doesn't matter is there Kurds in Turkish side or Turk in Kurdish side, you should read more about ethnic conflicts. This article's lead section need to be changed, it gives a such image that the PKK is the side which is fighting even though it is already mentioned in the infobox that there is other groups. I won't change name anymore, some wise admin finally understood that using the PKK-Turkey or PKK Rebellion, will be absolutely against WP:NPOV and against its content. Ferakp (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to merge the article with the Kurdish-Turkish conflict
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)


 * Explain how this is "event" and how it can be notable when it is just part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict?
 * I already said it is part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, albeit a different phase within the overall conflict. Per WP policy its notable enough due to its coverage in international media outlets who regularly cite July 2015 as the start date of this new period of the conflict when the years-long ceasefire collapsed. EkoGraf (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Ferakp has a clear agenda to first rename and then remove the article. It is a very notable war - thousands killed and hundreds of thousands displaced from July 2015.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation error in the civilian casualties part
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160513113013/http://www.12newsnow.com/story/31961121/official-4-kurdish-rebels-killed-in-blast-in-turkey to http://www.12newsnow.com/story/31961121/official-4-kurdish-rebels-killed-in-blast-in-turkey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Crisis group, important note should be included in the article
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)

TAK
The source 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)

Edits
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)

Neutrality of the article
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 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)

POV Title: Turkey-PKK conflict
Who are Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels? (BBC) addition -Pivox (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * 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/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
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_91.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_92.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_93.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_94.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_95.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_96.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_97.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_98.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/4_olaylar/4_2_onemli_yurtici_olaylar/onemliyurticiolaylar.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_99.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_100.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_101.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_102.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_103.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_133.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/4_olaylar/4_2_onemli_yurtici_olaylar/onemliyurticiolaylar.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_136.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2016/ba_138.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://theturkishsun.com/opponent-or-terrorist-the-dramatically-changing-nature-of-turkish-democracy-20313/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * 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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222232902/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_3-soldiers-killed-8-injured-in-pkk-attacks-in-southeast_407602.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_3-soldiers-killed-8-injured-in-pkk-attacks-in-southeast_407602.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129052449/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_police-detain-16-suspected-pkk-affiliated-ydg-h-members_409425.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_police-detain-16-suspected-pkk-affiliated-ydg-h-members_409425.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128103618/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_report-detention-warrant-issued-for-i-mc-tv-cameraman-injured-in-cizre_410215.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_report-detention-warrant-issued-for-i-mc-tv-cameraman-injured-in-cizre_410215.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128054638/http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkish-military-seizes-us-made-uav-in-anti-pkk-operation_410258.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkish-military-seizes-us-made-uav-in-anti-pkk-operation_410258.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305065144/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_8-security-force-members-killed-in-pkk-attacks-in-diyarbakir-i-dil_412631.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_8-security-force-members-killed-in-pkk-attacks-in-diyarbakir-i-dil_412631.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305014213/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_turkish-military-helicopters-kill-9-in-strikes-on-pkk-targets_413152.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_turkish-military-helicopters-kill-9-in-strikes-on-pkk-targets_413152.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307120023/http://www.balkanews.org/index.php/2016/03/01/turkey-to-partly-lift-curfew-in-kurdish-town/ to http://www.balkanews.org/index.php/2016/03/01/turkey-to-partly-lift-curfew-in-kurdish-town/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115010928/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_erdogan-accuses-academics-of-being-fifth-column_409479.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_erdogan-accuses-academics-of-being-fifth-column_409479.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving the quality of this article
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)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * EGM Polis Özel Harekat.svg

Adding Hatlink to 2019 Rojava offensive
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)

Casualties
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)
 * Sounds good to me. Konli17 (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

hurriyet daily news
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)