Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Turkish media, unreliable sources

Dear editors,

I see that some sources are Turkish news media. The problem is that the Turkish government is known to be a very harsh against journalists and media. Limited freedom of speech, and things like YouTube are forbidden. How should we deal with such sources? Aren't Turkish mainstream media per definition unreliable as source due to the heavy control by the Turkish state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.199.204 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they aren't. --Mttll (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Turkish media carry their own weight. They are one side's propaganda. Ofcourse they are not neutral, they are heavily biased.23x2 φ 14:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect, I could count more than 10 newspapers that are opposed to government and are indeed very critical of the government. As a matter of fact, this whole accusations about Turkish government being harsh on Turkish media is coming from media inside Turkey, which shows the contradiction since they are already capable to make such accusations. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Turkey for list of newspapers, the top 4 are anti-government, and there's more. 142.197.140.15 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey has a lot of newspapers and allover them are has different opinions.This speculations are just shit.Trust me we lough when people say Turkey doesnt have freedom of speech. Even terrorists can say we are supporting teror(As well they usually cant say. If they do, usually gets kick by people)

I don't know why foreign people always think that way but, almost every political or religious view have their own television and media resources. Also, lots of foreign and unbiased (mostly regional and some of them national) media organizations active in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First PKK or KCK?

KCK is at upper level at current hierarchy of the organization. I acknowledge it. But, PKK is the preferred name in the media and PKK existed since the start of the conflict but KCK is new. Should we put KCK or PKK at top in "Belligerents" in the template? Kavas (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict&diff=564147788&oldid=563519323 Now, PKK is at top, I agree with the decision to put it at top. Kavas (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Who says the conflict is over?

According to the infobox the peace process was finalized, rather than just initiated. Just because the peace talks have begun, one cannot conclude the conflict is over - it is a question on time and wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL to prophesize such things. Moreover, there were recently casualties in Kurdish demonstrations and currently the entire peace process is on the brink of being withdrawn by the PKK (see [1]). It is fine we write down "cease fire from January 2013" at the infobox, but the conflict is certainly not over.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. There was a ceasfeire in 1999 to, but the hostilities continued in 2004 (5 years later!!). We shouldn't just assume that the conflict is over because there is a (temporary) ceasefire. I did try to make this change see here, but it was reverted. --Երևանցի talk 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with the above mentioned points. Might I also add that the conflict is not only about the armed warfare, but it also involves "greater political and cultural rights for Kurds inside the Republic of Turkey" as mentioned in the lead. Have we ever come across a source that mentions that these rights have been granted to the Kurdish population? I personally have not. Therefore, the conflict in that regard is continuing and some might argue, in full force. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

PKK is not representative of Kurdish people in Turkey. Turkish army and police will always fight with illegal terrorist organizations but, it doesn't mean Turkish and Kurdish people in conflict. Another way is to change article PKK-Turkish Republic conflict and then you can say conflict is still active.

Foreign support to Kurdish?

No nation supports the Kurds in this conflict. That should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.87.35 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There are claims and facts that both need to be listed.KazekageTR (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

about the name

The name is not sounding well actually. Cause it is a fact that PKK's personnel is not %100 Kurdish. There are lots of conscripted Kurds on the Turkish Armed Forces . And this conflict is not ethnical, but the name sounds purely ethnical.

By the way there was a rename conversation in Arcive 2, which majority supported my ideas. I suggest a re-look at that conversation and rename the article.KazekageTR (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is not Kurdish conflict in Turkey there are people who supports terrorist group PKK which mostly Kurdo-Turkish citizens. Also, Turkish Armed Forces and Police and Kurdish volunteers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_guard_system) especially in that area are Kurds also most civilians died because PKK are Kurdish not Turkish. Even "Kurdish-PKK conflict" is better than "Kurdish-Turkish conflict". I suggest using Turkey-PKK conflict. Also, if we look PKK member Kurdish people, most of them shares different culture to regular Kurdish locals. Most Kurdish people in Turkey are conservative Muslims who strongly oppose Leftist Marxist ideology. Kurdish Hezbollah is another story they were also fought PKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert to pervious title

The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Turkey–PKK conflict → Kurdish–Turkish conflict – This page was moved without sufficient discussion on the matter, personally I believe the previous title was better because it acknowledged that the PKK was not the only Kurdish belligerent. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I disagree completely, Kurdish–Turkish conflict is much better. Charles Essie (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Like Indo-Pakistani War not Indian-Pakistani war and Russo-Georgian war rather than Russian-georgian war. -- Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
But this was not a short and intense war, this was a long running on-and-off conflict (like the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Chechen–Russian conflict, the Georgian–Ossetian conflict, the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, the Israeli–Lebanese conflict, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict). Charles Essie (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose; Kurdish people not a party to the conflict! A "terrorist organization" mentioned here. We can not talk about a war between Turkish Armed Forces or Turks and Kurds. All losses consists of soldiers of Turkish army and militants of PKK. Also, civillians killed by PKK. It should not even open to discussion. Maurice Flesier (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are lots of Kurds in Turkish Armed Forces and lots of people from other ethnicities in PKK and in those other militant groups. So this war is not ethnical. elmasmelih 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There are also Arabs in the Israel Defence Forces and Chechens in the Russian Armed Forces, but that doesn't change the nature of those conflicts. Besides the PKK is not the only militant group fighting against the Turkish government in this conflict. Charles Essie (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion about it in the archives. In addition to that, every news organisation in Turkey calls that conflict as PKK conflict.elmasmelih 15:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole new war

Airstrikes and battles and everything. needs revisions galore.

The PKK is not the Kurdish militant group fighting the government, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict isn't refered to as the Israel–PLO conflict or the Israel–Hamas conflict because despite the fact that those are the most active groups, they're not the only ones. Charles Essie (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2014 (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.
I agree. It's been called a Civil War, but I wouldn't go that far just yet. Anyway this is a whole new phenomenon fueled by AKPs political goals, the spillover of the Syrian Civil War, and the formation of a de facto Rojava state south of Turkey. The success of the Syrian Kurds had ignited Northern Kurdish national aspirations while concerning the Turks. Anyway, I think this is quickly becoming "big" enough to warrant its own page. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is called Turkey-PKK conflict but content is totally something else. It is more Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Ferakp (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times article doesn't refer to the situation as "civil war". Additionally, considering that not every Kurdish-origin citizen supports PKK (actually substantial amounts are against the militant actions), and since PKK is not an official or ethical representative of the Kurdish minority of Turkey and in fact it is a narco-terrorist organization designated so by many states and bodies, the article's name should stay as what it is. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 January 2016, 23:21 (UTC)
Comment It doesn't matter how many states or bodies classify the PKK as a terrorist organization, PKK is not a terrorist organization until UN decides it. Russia, UN, Switzerland, China, India, Brazilia and Egypt don't see the PKK as a terrorist organization and they allow PKK to run their business. Turkey see the PKK as a drug trafficking organization, the US see some PKK leader drug traffickers but not the PKK. EU and all PKK supporters don't see the PKK as a drug trafficking organization. EU has also published reports where they say that there is no evidences that PKK is selling drugs.Ferakp (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry didn't know you are from the future. 12 June 2016? :) Ferakp (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Kurds are not minority in Turkey. "Considering that not every Kurdish-origin citizen supports PKK" This is not sincere. Also why you said 'Kurdish-origin citizen' ? If I say to you 'Turkish-origin citizen' you will be happy? 30 million Kurds are supports PKK. The whole world knows it. Bruskom talk to me 02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Kurds are the majority of Turkey and Turks are the minority and every single kurdish supports PKK and terrorism and the whole Turkey and Europe and Eurasia is a part of Massoud Barzani's state and PKK members are the angels of peace because UN didn't claim they are a terrorist organization. Its sad you don't even know that according to UN principles, UN isn't allowed to classify any ethnic-based organizations as terrorist in any part of the world. I didn't know that Wikipedia became a place of aggresive unethical and incorrect editing which serve people's personal benefits. No vestige of neutralism here and you are nothing but wardogs of Russia. Have fun playing with Wikipedia pages like play-dohs, hope Jimmy Wales will take some measures against unneutral aggresive pov edits without resources in Wikipedia. Berkaysnklf (talk), 15 January 2016, 18:09 (UTC)

If 30 million (for four-base numeral system or what :) Kurds supported PKK why they didn't vote HDP (which also supported from Turkish far-leftists) they almost cannot get into parliament. He said because you talk about Kurdish conflict. Didn't you heard Afro-American or (s)he is racist because (s)he is a Turk? I know who is real racist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Confusing article

The name of article is Turkey-PKK conflict, but it says that The Turkey–PKK conflict[note] is an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups... The name of article doesn't describe its content. Name should be changed or the article should focus on conflict between Turkey and PKK. Ferakp (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree This title is very confusing and incorrect.
It is NPOV propaganda that follows the Turkish state agenda to falsely represent a +300 year old conflict between Kurds and the Turkish (prev. Ottoman) government as a conflict between them and one organisation they want to brand as a terrorist organisation.
It is a conflict between both unorganized Kurdish civilians in cities and villages and more then 10 Kurdish organisations (including PKK) on the one side and the Turkish government (AKP party) on the other side.
This representation is very wrong and leans Wikipedia to be used for false propaganda objectives.
It is very false to mark unorganized civilians 'PKK terrorists' in cities like Cizre, Diyarbakir,... that revolt against the Turkish government for being oppressed while a lot of them never joined or claimed to be part of for example an organisation like PKK. It is abominable to do so and it even provides a safe conduct to conduct human right abuses against these citizens.
Wikipedia should not participate in this and should not lean itself for such an abusive agenda.
The original, non-propagandist title was much better. In comparison. There are Palestinians, Arabs serving inside the Israëli army. That does not change anything about the reality that it is called a Israëli-Palestinian conflict. That there are some Kurds serving inside the Turkish army does not change the fact it is a conflict against the oppression of the Kurdish people, culture and the occupation of Kurdistan by the Turkish state, like Tibet is occupied by China.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I already made request to change the article's name. Changing name will solve many problems in this article.Ferakp (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed for some other forces

(This section has been renewed after the article was locked)

Following forces need to be verified with reliable sources: HIK: was legal Islamic movement and never involved in an armed conflict. PŞK: is political party, not armed group and has never involved in an armed conflict. No evidences atm. TKP/ML: is not Kurdish insurgent group, it is Turkish insurgent group carrying attacks against Turkish Government. Some claimed cooperation with the PKK has been reported but never confirmed. Source needed to verify it is Kurdish insurgency group and is part of an Kurdish armed conflict. MKP-HKO-PHG: This group is not Kurdish insurgency group and has nothing to do with the Turkey-PKK conflict. Revolutionary Headquarter: This group is not Kurdish insurgency group. There is no evidence that it is Kurdish insurgency group and is part of an armed conflict even they have allegedly cooperated with other communist parties. Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist: This is Turkish illegal political party, not Kurdish insurgency group. Hasn't been a part of PKK-Turkey conflict. Reliable sources are needed. Ferakp (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


[citation needed] tags will be requested and you are free to delete them if you find reliable sources to prove that they really belong to this article. Good to know: Sources have to say that they are Kurdish insurgency groups. Ferakp (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

DHKP/C should be deleted, it has nothing to do with Kurdish issue and it is Turkish insurgency group. Also, it has own article DHKP/C insurgency in Turkey. Cooperation with other forces is alleged and never confirmed. Strong sources are needed to prove that this group is part of Kurdish issue. Ferakp (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 January 2016

Requests explained in "Citation needed for some other forces" section. (Above)
HİK to HİK[citation needed]
PŞK to PŞK[citation needed]
Delete DHKP/C, it is Turkish insurgency group not Kurdish insurgency group. Also, it has its own article: DHKP/C insurgency in Turkey. There is claimed cooperation between other Turkish communist parties that are allegedly cooperated with the PKK but never confirmed.
TKP-ML to TKP-ML[citation needed]
MKP-HKO-PHG to MKP-HKO-PHG[citation needed]
Revolutionary Headquarter to Revolutionary Headquarter[citation needed]
TKEP to TKEP[citation needed]

Ferakp (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand it do you? The mlkp, dhkpc and many other have strong ties with pkk and ither kurdish groups. The mlkp and some other for example helped each other in syria for support. They both fight against the government and both have been sourced by the article as well. If it was for, everything on the other forces section should be removed wich makes bo sense when you can't even come up with a reliable source. The HIK and PIK are and have been for a time active and still are in existence. The HIK for example worked for a time together with the pkk wich is sourced. Read the main article better. Gala19000 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The facts that they have ties with other. Because there is no reliable fact evidence doesn't mean that you have to remove it. Thats like saying that we have to remove Russia as a supporter because there is no reliable evidence. Gala19000 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Kurdish insurgency groups and Turkey, not Turkish insurgency groups. MLKP and DHKPC are totally different organizations and they have nothing to do with this article. If they have strong ties or cooperation then you need sources which could confirm this. If you think they support Kurdish insurgency groups, then add a source and then transfer them to the supporters section. The same thing with HIK and PIK, you need a source which could confirm they are Kurdish insurgency groups and that they are fighting against Turkey. Ferakp (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that you need to read the article better. The dhkpc for example is sourced. The mlkp and their guerillas in areas like tunceli have been actively fighting with the pkk. They even sended their guerillas to syria to fight against isis with the pkk and ypg. This page included both kurdish groups and groups that fight with and have been alleged by the government that they fight/co operate with those groups. Don't see really a reason to remove it then. If its do, why don't you add sources for your claim? By some historical and recent activities you can find out what those groups have in common and help each other in a different way. Many leftist and communist groups(wich the pkk was in the oast and still kind of is) help each other and also fight for the same goal. They use many same tactics. Gala19000 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good you know it better than me and you saw source from DHKPC article's that is supporting your opinion, please copy paste it here. Thanks.Ferakp (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is if I'm not mistaken is on the page self. Gala19000 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, copy paste it here. Let me see it because I can't find it from the main article.Ferakp (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Main articles, for example the PIK, clearly states at the main article at the section co operation that it worked together with the pkk wich is sources. Like I said many times earlier, read better. Gala19000 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said PIK need sources? You should read my request carefully and see what I requested, I didn't request source for PIK. The article is related to Kurdish insurgency groups which are/have involved in an armed conflict.

You have added all Mao Tao Chao...Turkish communist parties here, it is not working like that. They have to be Kurdish insurgency groups which have/are fighting against Turkey, if not then they should have supported the PKK. If they have supported the PKK, then they should be added to "supported" section not "other forces". Let me also tell this in Turkish: Ben sana PIK örgütun kaynaga lazım olduğunu ne zaman söyledim? Benim isteklerimi iyi oku ve hangi örgütlerin kaynaga lazım olduklarını gör. PIK için kaynak istemedim. Bu sayfa Türkiye ve silahlı kürt örgütlerle ilgili. Türkiyenin bütün komunist partilerini (Antep komunist partisi hariç) kürt tarafına eklemişsin. Bunları guvenli kaynaklarla kanıtlaman lazım. Eğer bir örgütün, mesela DHKPC'nin PKKya yardım ettiğini kanıtlayacak kaynağın varsa, kaynağıyla "destek verenler" kısmına eklemen lazım, "öbür örgütler" kısmına değil. Ferakp (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The DHKPC is already sourced. Gala19000 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The DHKPC is not sourced, the source has never worked, it was dead link when it was added. And I told you if source confirm that DHKPC is supporting Kurdish insurgency groups then add it to "supported by" section. Ferakp (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Link needs to be refreshed. The 'other forces' section has both, the ones who support them and fight with them or have been alleged to do so by the government. Don't forget that the 'supported' by section is also mostly 'alleged' or acused by Turkey that they might support those groups. Gala19000 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And again, the PIK is a 'Kurdish' gorup. The titile of the article has changed for that reason also to 'kurdish-turkish' conflict as many different turkish and kurdish groups clash with each other with the main particepants Turkey and the PKK. So yes, they do belong to this list as they have been alleged to support them by the government as well. Gala19000 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what does "Other forces" and "Supported by" mean? Check Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other conflict, "other forces" are usually deleted. Also, I requested to move the article to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) which was accepted because Turkey-PKK conflict name was totally wrong. Kurdish-Turkish conflict means conflict between Turkish and Kurdish insurgency groups that are supporting and against Turkey. Turkish Hezbullah, the Deep state, Dokumacilar and other organizations will be added to Turkish side after changes are made. They are clearly supporting Turkey by attacking Kurds, like DHKPC and other communist organizations are added to Kurdish side even they are Turkish groups, not Kurdish groups.Ferakp (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What? Are tou serious? Those groups like hezbollah and dolumcular don't work with the government and are recognized as a terrorist group by Turkey. The groups that are added on the pkk side doesn't mean that they have ti be kurdish. Can you read? They are groups who have been accused by the government that they work together and both targer the government and security forces. Gala19000 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The big point is is that those groups on the pkk side are recognized by Turkey as a terror group, the pkk on the other hand accuses Turkey for 'supporting' isis in syria against the ypg. Isis doesn't suppirt Turkey in any way against their fight with the pkk. You are just trying to find reasons to add more on the Turkish side to make it look like that they get a lot of foreign and internal support. While in fact, its only the turkish government who actively fights against them. The only real other forces who help Turkey at the moment are the village guard and a litle but the Grey wilves wich are already mentions. The DHKPC has been just like the other groups accused by Turkey of co operation with other terror groups on the list. Removing those groups makes no sense as they give the viewer a clear image of the situation inside Turkey and what the conflict is al about. And as last, you shouldn't forget the facts that the pkk and many other communist and leftist groups have strong ties with eacht other. Especialy their youth supporters who also support each other in their fight against the government. Gala19000 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Because they fight against the same enemy doesn't mean that they help Turkey. Its like saying that ISIS and Al qaeda help Turkey because they fight the same enemies. Gala19000 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

All groups on Kurdish side are not recognized as a terrorist groups by Turkey. Read their articles again. At least 5 group is not recognized as a terrorist organization.. Have you ever read this article? The biggest problem here is that you don't understand that Turkey-PKK conflict is different than Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Turkey-PKK conflict is just a part of Kurdish-Turkish conflict, it is not the same thing and I showed dozens of sources that confirm this and eventually admins changed the page name. Your problem is that you see this article as a Turkey-PKK conflict, it is not! So if a one group supports the PKK, it doesn't mean it supports the Kurds in Kurdish-Turkish conflict and should not be in "other forces" only because it supports the PKK. If you add DHKPC and all communist parties that has nothing to do with Kurdish-Turkish conflict and just because they support the PKK, then it means you are considering every single Kurdish insurgency groups supporters as Turkey's enemy and Kurdish supporters in Kurdish-Turkish conflict, just think a little bit about your logic.. PKK see a Hizbullah as a terrorist organization and dangerous for the Kurds. So should I delete it because they see Hizbullah as a terrorist organization? According to your logic "Because Turkey see them as a terrorist organization", I should also do it. Dokumacilar is Turkish organizatin, not ISIS. Its location is in Turkey and it is only bombing the Kurds. There is tons of sources. Now because they are against the Kurds in Turkey and fights against them(PKK, YPG and all Kurdish organizations in Turkey) then I should add it to the Turkish side because according to your logic, Kurds see them as a terrorist organization and they have said that they are working with Turkey. Also, international sources confirm this. Dokumacilar is not recognized as a terrorist organization because it is not ISIS (influenced), it is separate organization and it is active in Turkey. Ferakp (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember this is Kurdish-Turkish conflict, not Turkey-PKK conflict. Also, before commenting or opposing my requests, make sure you have appropriate answer or comment. Because Turkey see it like this and that is not appropriate answer. This is not Turkish government website. You need sources. For example, if I say sky is blue, don't come here and say it is red because Turkey see it as a red... Come with source and say, I am opposing because according to this and that source it could be also red so saying sky is a blue is not right. Read WP:PG Ferakp (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you got a point on that whole hezbollah thing, but those leftist and communist groups should stay. Hezbollah maybe should put apart then as a neutral group. The Dokumcular are a terrorist groups who are actualy in short ISIS inside Turkey. ISIS has many of their own small groups in other countries with different names or groups who work with each other. The Turkish-kurdish page has both, kurdish groups and groups who have been alleged of working with each other. And please stop saying that 'turkish page' thing. This conflict is between turkey and kurds, se yes, the turkish side of the conflict is important as most of the sources come from them. Who is more reliable for you? A state with a legit government or a terrorists/militant group who uses violance/freedom actions(for the pkk supporters)? Removing those groups doesn't make any sense and we can better keep them on the page for more information. And like I said earlier, because that the dokumcular kill/fight against the pkk doesn't mean that they work or help the government. The pkk and their other forces and their members have ties with eacht other unlike Turkey and isis(dokumcular). Gala19000 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

About the Dokumcular again, they are linked to ISIS and thus are also terrorists. The reason why they don't get mentiont apart is because they mostly see them as the same as ISIS just like they see mostly the yps and ydg-h the same as the pkk. Gala19000 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No sources were added for my requests. Need admin support to delete them.Ferakp (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2016

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: There seems to be a consensus, so Moved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Turkey–PKK conflict → Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) – Using the name Turkey-PKK conflict for this article is against WP:PRECISION. Turkey-PKK conflict means more conflict between PKK and Turkey. The content of this article relates more to the conflict between Turkey and all Kurdish insurgent groups than Turkey and PKK. PKK is just one of the insurgent groups.

Turkey–PKK conflict is an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups, which have demanded separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan, or to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds inside the Republic of Turkey. <-- Turkey-PKK conflict is not an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgents. The name describes more conflict between PKK and Turkey. Kurdish insurgents have totally different ideologies and objectives. There is no books, news or any publications that use "Turkey-PKK conflict" name for conflict between Turkey and all Kurdish insurgent groups. Kurdish conflict is used to describe conflict between Turkey and Kurdish organizations that are against Turkey. Turkey-PKK conflict is a part of Kurdish conflict, it is absolutely not the same thing. However, Kurdish conflict could be too vague because there is too many different Kurdish conflicts. Turkish-Kurdish conflict is also used to describe conflict between Turkey and Kurdish insurgency groups, mainly in books.Ferakp (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It is not a problem, it could be Kurdish conflict (Turkey) or Kurdish conflict in Turkey. Using Turkey-PKK conflict is against WP:PRECISION, it means more conflict between Turkey and PKK. Answer to GreyShark. Ferakp (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • If 'PKK' is inexact, I'd go with Kurdish conflict in Turkey. DS (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree, I would changing it to Kurdish conflict in Turkey.Ferakp (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to remind you guys that there is Kurdish rebellions in Turkey article already.GreyShark (dibra) 14:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The conflict takes place also in Iraq and to a lesser extent Syria, not only in Turkey. Kurdish conflict in Turkey wouldn't be broad enough. Wykx 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It is an armed conflict and it has been mainly in Turkey. See Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it has similar situation, it takes place also in Libanon, Jordan and Syria. However, another alternative is Turkish-Kurdish conflict : Some groups or forces that have fought against Kurdish insurgency groups with Turkey were not officially part of Turkish armed forces or authorities, for example, Turkish Hizbullah, Grey Wolves and Deep state. The conflict has been mainly between Turks and Kurds even though some Turks have joined Kurdish insurgency groups and some Kurds have joined Turkish side. This source would support Turkish-Kurdish conflict name--> I would choice Turkish-Kurdish conflict if someone agree with me.Ferakp (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I would favor Turkish–Kurdish conflict which is also constructed on the same way as the previous conflict with Iraqi forces (Iraqi–Kurdish conflict). Wykx 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wykx: what about Kurdish rebellions in Turkey - are not they all a "Kurdish-Turkish conflict"? The Turkey-PKK conflict is a part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. To rename PKK conflict into "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" is like renaming "Battle of Sanaa" to "Yemeni conflict" or renaming "Siege of Homs" into Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 14:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Turkey-PKK conflict is conflict between PKK and Turkey. This article is related to conflict between Turkey and all Kurdish insurgent groups. It is same as writing article about WW2 and naming it as Germany-Russian war. Kurdish rebellion is a far away from content of this article. Ferakp (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Wykx. Changing to Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Ferakp (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if there's no opposition within the next 24 hours, I'll move it. DS (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You cannot close this. You are not an admin.GreyShark (dibra) 14:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If you have comment or opinion related to this request, feel free to write here. Who is admin or not, is not your business.. Ferakp (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - someone changed the target from "Kurdish conflict" to "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" while the vote is ongoing. The change is completely disruptive as it makes the votes of "oppose" and "support" useless and confusing. If you like another name - make a new proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I have right to change it during comments. Also, you can read from comments that changing was result of consensus. Ferakp (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is disruptive and punishable to change original proposal text. Comment whatever you like. Don't change the original proposal text.GreyShark (dibra) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not, I asked about it. Show where Wikipedia says it is punishable. Instead of accusing users, write comments about request and let us know, why you are against or for request. Ferakp (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources which support the request: 1. http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/862/the-turkish-kurdish-conflict-in-theory-and-practice 2. http://aranews.net/2015/04/turkish-kurdish-conflict-resumed 3. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/A-History-of-the-Turkish-Kurdish-Conflict-20150728-0042.html 4. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-8219.00065/abstract;jsessionid=7F8284BF5513010C32A50BBA0FB1427C.f04t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false 5. https://books.google.fi/books?id=b99dfVMJNRMC&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=Turkish-Kurdish+conflict+summary&source=bl&ots=8PyqcCyEl5&sig=Iy7YAlKJDEN9VEexEL-iLmrC2kE&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqn_Ka0aTKAhWEDiwKHfA9CDk4KBDoAQg3MAQ#v=onepage&q=Turkish-Kurdish%20conflict%20summary&f=false 6. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-8219.00065/abstract Ferakp (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The previous name of this article was Kurdish–Turkish conflict. In a past discussion I suggested returning to that name considering the fact that the Kurdistan Workers' Party is not the only Kurdish group in conflict with the Turkish state (others include the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, the Communist Party of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Party/North, ect.). That said, it should also be acknowledged that there have been Kurdish uprisings against the Turkish state long before the conflict with the PKK and it's allies erupted 1978. So perhaps Kurdish–Turkish conflict could serve as the name of a new article covering this long-running conflict that has existed long before any of the current militant factions emerged. Charles Essie (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Ferakp, DragonflySixtyseven, and Charles Essie: Indeed we have already a global article named Kurdish rebellions in Turkey that already exists. We may have to consider to change name to Turkish–Kurdish conflict (1978–present) for the one we are discussing about. Wykx 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree with Wykx. I will change the request name to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (1978-present) if consensus can be reached. Ferakp (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: you should change the page name, but not the request name if a consensus is reached. Wykx 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, I meant the requested name. Ferakp (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree This title is very confusing and incorrect.
  • Agree - Strong support for move
It is NPOV propaganda that follows the Turkish state agenda to falsely represent a +300 year old conflict between Kurds and the Turkish (prev. Ottoman) government as a conflict between them and one organisation they want to brand as a terrorist organisation.
It is a conflict between both unorganized Kurdish civilians in cities and villages and more then 10 Kurdish organisations (including PKK) on the one side and the Turkish government (AKP party) on the other side.
The representation of this conflict as a Turkisch-PKK conflict is very wrong and leans Wikipedia to be used for false propaganda objectives.
It is very false to mark unorganized civilians 'PKK terrorists' in cities like Cizre, Diyarbakir,... that revolt against the Turkish government for being oppressed while a lot of them never joined or claimed to be part of for example an organisation like PKK. It is abominable to do so and it even provides a safe conduct to conduct human right abuses against these citizens.
Wikipedia should not participate in this and should not lean itself for such an abusive agenda.
The original, non-propagandist title was much better. In comparison. There are Palestinians, Arabs serving inside the Israëli army. That does not change anything about the reality that it is called a Israëli-Palestinian conflict. That there are some Kurds serving inside the Turkish army does not change the fact it is a conflict against the oppression of the Kurdish people, culture and the occupation of Kurdistan by the Turkish state, like Tibet is occupied by China.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we are reaching consensus. Agree with Charles Essie. Changing the requested page name to Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) in 24 hours if there won't be opposition.Ferakp (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The requested page name has been changed to Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) after consensus was reached. Ferakp (talk) 17:38, 13 January 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.

Kurdish Hezbullah needs to be removed

Kurdish Hezbullah needs to be removed from the other forces of Kurdish side. There is many reasons: 1. It has fought against all Kurdish groups with Turkey. It was ally with Turkey. 2. Such group as Kurdish Hezbullah doesn't exist. Its real name is Hizbullah and it is known as Turkish Hezbullah in books and publications. 3. It is Turkish Sunni Islamist militant organization and fighting against the Kurdish groups. How could it be in Kurdish side? 4. It has fought against Turkey also. It is already explained in infobox that this group is fighting against the PKK and Turkey. No need to add it to other side.

Ferakp (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Protected edit request on 8 January 2016

Delete Kurdish Hezbollah and its commanders Muhammad Mustafa and Hüseyin Velioğlu  †. Ferakp (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Ferakp (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the name of the article should be changed to Turkey/kurdish conflict. The 'kurdish' hezbollah has been neutral in terms of alliance. Removing it makes thus no sense. This article doesn't just includes pkk and their other factiosn in iran and syria but also different kurdish insurgent groups. Gala19000 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So why would you keep it in Kurdish side, for what reason? Ferakp (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For the reason that it is kurdish? Liek I said, the article doesn't just contain the pkk but also other kurdish groups and groups that have ties with the pkk or have been alleged that they work with eash other. Gala19000 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any source that says it is Kurdish insurgency group and it is fighting against Turkey? This groups real name is a Turkish Hezbullah, it is Turkish Sunni Islamist group(not Kurdish even they had Kurdish members) and it has fought against Turkey and PKK, and at this moment it is fighting against both of them. It is already explained in the bottom of infobox. Ferakp (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The origin and mayority of the group is kurdish and have been descibed many times kurdish. The reason why it is called turkish is to make it clear that they operate inside Turkey. Yes, just liek they alleged fought against the pkk with the government, they have been alleged of fighting for a time eith the pkk as the government sees both of them as terrorists groups. Gala19000 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Einstein, it looks like you know history better than published international history books. I have used two published books as sources in Turkish Hezbullah article. The organization official name was just Hizbullah in Turkish government dangerous organizations list. I understand your opinion but sources are needed here in Wikipedia, nothing is self-evident. Ferakp (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The organisation has been decribed as both. They have and still are descibed as a terrorist group by the government wich us what really mathers. The section if the hezbollah has been mentions beneath the pkk to show that they do not fight with each ither anymire but still are active. Its nice to see you using sourced, but what even better would benif you would do some better research and also read the main articles better of how those groups are seen/described by Turkey. Gala19000 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I told you last time that Wikipedia is not Turkish government website. It is neutral and free encyclopedia. Ferakp (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did I say that Wiki is a turkish government site? Stop with those absurd comments. The hezbollah has been put apart in the commanders section wich makes them neutral compared to other commanders. Gala19000 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, what wrong with putting the turkish perspective as source? Does that somehow hurt you? You are free to mention pkk/neutral sources as well. This artcile has all 3 of them. Nothing wrong about that. Gala19000 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't understand you. No appropriate answers and avoiding sources. Please, read Wikipedia rules.Ferakp (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to answer you, I'm here to show/tell my own sources/perspective of the conflict just like you. I think that you should read more about the groups of the other forces section instead of calling me to source'm every single group when it is already mentions on their own article and also very well known. Gala19000 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus yet. Please seek input from other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 January 2016

Add this to Abuses by Turkish side section: In 1993, Mehmet Ogut, his pregnant wife and 7 children were burned to death by Turkish special forces soldiers. The Turkish authorities blamed the PKK and refused to investigate it. After 20 years, the investigations were started and they eventually came to an end in late 2014 with sentences of life imprisonment for three gendarme officers, a member of the special forces and nine soldiers. Ferakp (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No objections so plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wounded casualties

Wounded casualties has no place in this list as it is impossible to know how many pkk militants were wounded. Only killed and captured are and should be mentiont. Gala19000 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Not necessarily a COI, however Ferakp came to me in IRC so I supposed I'd let another user review this. The request is that wounded casualties should be in the article, since they are supported by reliable sources as well as should have a place. [2] is an example of deletion of the content by Gala19000. Pinged both users for discussion. Also pinged previous requested edit reviewer MSGJ. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of wounded soldiers, police officers and village guards is good to add to the Turkish side. This is because some captured militants were also wounded militants. Also, I think it is not a good reason to delete details from the second side only because the same details are not available in the first side. Ferakp (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, they should be. But if it gets added, the PKK casualties (wounded) should be added as well with reliable sources. Adding just on the one side of the casualties makes it look unbalanced (neutral) and makes the list too long. I suppose we add the wounded and more detailed casualties at the casualties section of the article. Gala19000 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It should be added to the place where I exactly added before you reversed. PKK's wounded militants are already included in 14,000 captured details. I will give you source, wait a little bit.Ferakp (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
They are 'included'. But those are not the wounded militants who were wounded and escaped or who were wounded by airstrikes. The list of the casualties gets so too long as well. Add your 'reliable' sourced casualties at the casualties section from both sides. Gala19000 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Both sources that were used for 14,000 captured militants didn't contain such information. Added another source which says how many PKK militants were wounded and captured.Ferakp (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove the 14,000 captured? Its sourced in the casualties section. Gala19000 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no source for it. Read casualties section and see is there source for it. If you want find it, undo my changes and add the source.Ferakp (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Also look this source, this source is same as used source in casualties section. It is the same source but 5 years newer. [1] Ferakp (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It still comes from 2012 and still old. New turkish claims for the pkk casualties are between 30,000-40,000. Gala19000 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, the source says that the 22,000 killed are only the killed bodies the Turkish army/government had from clashes. So, it most likely doesn't include the airstikes in northern Iraq (Turkish claim). Gala19000 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


Falsifying details is not a good behavior.
Source 1=[2]: 32,000 killed and totally 46,000 killed, wounded and arrested. So it means 14,000 wounded and arrested. It says (Yaralı ve sağ yakalanlarla 46 bin) which means with wounded and alive arrested 46,000. This source is from 2008.
Source 2=[3]: 22,101 killed. This source is from 2013.
Source 3=[4]: 21,800 killed. 1,400 wounded and arrested. This source is from 2012.
Source 5=[5]: 22,101 killed. This source is Hurriyet turkish newspaper, same source as first source. Source 1 is from 2008, source 5 is from 2013. They are both same sources, Hurriyet newspaper. Source 1 is probably not news or unreliable. It doesn't even looks like news. Ferakp (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You said new Turkish claims for the PKK casualties are between 30,000-40,000. Can you show me the the sources? Add them here because I have never seen such sources.Ferakp (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The source was the casualties section wich has al lot of sources as well. Gala19000 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to add the wounded at the Turkish side ad then the total numbers of wounded just like by the pkk. Gala19000 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Now according to these sources, following details should be added to infobox:
22,101-32,000 killed, 1,400-14,000 wounded and arrested. Do you accept?Ferakp (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
What is your problem? You changed details to the 14,000 captured even the source says 14,000 captured and wounded. Why are you falsifying sources? Ferakp (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I accept. Sorry for the edit, was a mistake. Gala19000 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

According to experienced editors, we could remove the oldest source and use only newest ones. So that Hurriyet source which says 32,000 killed and 14,000 wounded could be deleted. This is probably because we have almost 5 sources that are newer than the oldest one and also it is contradictory with the newest source. Do you have anything to say before I delete it and add Turkish side's wounded soldiers, polices and village guards? Ferakp (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, add for te wounded personel only the total numbers like the pkk casualties. Otherwise the list becomes too long and confusing. The casualties section should be renewed. Gala19000 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say about the casualties of the 22,000-32,000, add them both like you mentiont above with the 'do you accept'?. Although they are old, many more things are old and when new statistics come from the Turkish side, we should add them. Gala19000 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The total killed should be renewed as well. Current killed numbers are much more then just 30,000. Gala19000 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Which sources say so? Can you add them here, I will change it.Ferakp (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm gonna search and add it later on. The 30,000 total killed source is old. With the current events ongoing, the amount of killed is much higher. But I think it would be smarter to add it when the conflict is over when one of the two sides wins or a cease fire. Gala19000 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok Ferakp (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Discussion seems to have run its course and it is not apparent that an open requested edit is still necessary. If there is still disagreement, I would suggest referring this to the appropriate wikiproject or to WP:RFC, rather than open an edit request. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Captured

Don't need to add "later released" text after captured ones. Some of them are still not released (12 soldiers and polices). Also, all captured fighters are not in jail. A lot of them have been released. For example, Osman Öcalan and his unit has been released. There is tons of news where released ones are used as a propaganda. (At the end, they were captured and released).

So adding (later released) information is not right, since some of them are still held. Read sources.Ferakp (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that only the current captured soldiers should be mentiont. Not soldiers that have been released years ago. The amount of soldiers/police officers the pkk has in captive now is 8. Gala19000 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is already captured&released fighters mentioned in Kurdish side (14,000) so it will be good to mention them also in Turkish side. Also, captured Turkish soldiers are more than 400. This number is what Turkish press says, I added one source (Hurriyet/Milliyet) which says so. I don't want to add it to the infobix, because it doesn't give any details. Actually, more than 1000 soldiers, police officers and village guards have been captured. I am trying to find a one Amnesty International report where they mentioned number of captured soldiers and police officers since 1980. The report was related to Turkish soldiers who beheaded 4 PKK fighters. They were caught when they published their pictures with severed heads of PKK fighters (http://www.agiasofia.com/kurds2.jpg). Going to add it to human rights abuses section but first I have to find the report. At this moment, PKK still keep 12 soldiers and police officers + 10 police officers from 2014 (still not released). Ferakp (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The more than 100/1000 captured is a pkk claim, not turkish. The captured pkk militants never get released. They are still captive/in prisson. The pkk on the other hand releases the captured security forces after a time. This list should only mention the ones who are still in captivity like the 1400 pkk militants/members. The pkk has a total of 10 turkish forces captive. Gala19000 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"The captured pkk militants never get released." I can find tons of sources to prove that this claim is absolutely not true. "The more than 100/1000 captured is a pkk claim, not turkish." Read sources I added, only Turkish sources say that more than 400 have been captured during the conflict. Also, that more than 1000 is not a PKK claim, it is independent sources claims. Take into account that Turkey try as much as possible to not mention their captured soldiers. For example, have you heard in Turkish news anything about current captured soldiers?

"The pkk has a total of 10 turkish forces captive." This is not true, because they released 12 soldiers videos last month. Also, they released 10 police officers pictures. Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you would have followed Turkish news then you would have known that they mentiont that turkish police officers were kidnapped/captured by pkk. The pkk members are still mostly in prisson. So, you're gonna ad the whole 1000 captured thing from all years? They are mostly released by either the pkk self or rescue operations. There is no such claim by the Turkish government. If you're gonna ad such thing, add it in the casualties section as a independent or pkk claim wich it clearly is. Oh, and please don't try to mention that every 'turkish' source is reliable. Many of those hurriyet and others are anti-akp/Erdogan. They make unreliable news as well to make the government look bad. Gala19000 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The current captured/captive pkk members are around 1,500/1,400. The current captured turkish security forces are between 10-30. Only the current captive should be mentiont and the ones who were captured during the whole conflict should be mentiont in the casualties section. The 400 captured was during the whole conflict of wich most were released or rescued by Turkish forces. The 1000 claim is on the other hand more of a pkk side claim (independent sources claim more sources from the pkk side, for example, the '18,000' executed kurdish civilians is cleary pro-pkk. The turkish governmt says that many kurdish civilians were killed by the pkk and less by the government). Gala19000 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you editing content for your own given claims and then ask no one else should edit but talk on the talk page. But when someone else askes you to talk on the talk page instead of editing you still do it? stop being ignorant. And yes, Rudaw is Kurdish wich gives mostly kurdish sources claims/news. Do some research. Gala19000 (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So what Rudaw is Kurdish source? Does it mean that I can't add it? Also, your logic has not sense at all. This article is not strawberry cake, where you can pick all bad strawberries and leave best ones which could make it look better for you.. Your behavior is not right and it is against WP rules. You reversed my changes before using the talk page and you have been warned before many times for your behavior. Ferakp (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding more sources doens't mean that it is right. The source you gave like the bingöl attack doesn't make much sense to that claim. The 22 soldiers were later rescued and freed. And the source in wich 8 soldiers were captured and later released doens't make much sense as well. But yeah, ain't gonna edit much anymore as you can't resolve the problems with the article on the talk page by yourself but instead go to a admin and report me on that page for 'vandalizing' or something else while I give you here clealy the reason why it should not be mentiont like that on the article. Gala19000 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you blind or dumb? Sorry, but your behavior doesn't make any sense. Yes it does, Rudaw is kurdish (wich makes news of mostly kurdish sources). The casualty section on the article is a 'Turkish' claim wich needs turkish sourced claims/news. Hmm, I'm pretty sure that I talked first on the talk page for my own claim and then edited the article. Like I said, stop being ignorant. Gala19000 (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you are trying to edit this article to whatever you like. It is not working like that. Also, these MLKP and other communist parties will be deleted soon. I am starting to clean this article one by one. Atm, I am gathering sources and information for falsified and alleged sections. Your changes don't improve this article at all, just look them. Ferakp (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The MLKP and other communist party's won't be removed. We talked on the on the other section. They have strong ties with the pkk and ypg wich they admited. 'You are trying to edit this article to whatever you wan', the only one I see doing that is you. Stop being ignorant in the first place and stop editing things before you talk on the talk page and come out with a deal from both sides. Gala19000 (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So if some organization has "strong" ties to another organization then it become new force for Kurdish side. They don't have "strong" ties, it is alleged and never confirmed by Kurdish side. Also, it has cooperated with PKK and PKK is just a one org. in this conflict. According to your "strong" logic, I should add Turkish Hezbullah, Deep state, Dokumacilar, Turkmen Mafias and other organizations because they have "strong" ties. Just think a little bit, just think... a little bit. Ferakp (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The MLKP was not even added by me but by other editors who alse knew and still know that those communist party's have strong ties with the pkk. Abd if you and your 'sources' disagree with that then put that here on the talkp page and make a new page on wich you can add all of your 'other' forces claim from a 'independent' and pkk claim. Gala19000 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you really don't understand Wikipedia and its rules. If you add something you need to add source also. Now, there is MLKP but not source (not valid). What I am trying to say MLKP is Turkish communist party, not Kurdish. It has totally different ideology and objectives than Kurdish organizations. It is not mainly working in Kurdish areas. This is enough to delete it with the fact that it has not source. Also, it is possible that it is cooperating with the PKK but it doesn't mean you can add it as "force" to the Kurdish side. It can support the Kurds, then it will go to the "supported by" section. You have no idea what are you defending.Ferakp (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, belive me, I think much more than you do. You instead should think a lot more instead of a 'little bit'. We already have put the hezbollah apart from the pkk. The communist parties are and have been working wich each other to destabilize Turkey. Just like the casualties wich mentions 'turkish claim', this one is partly a turkish claim as well. And once again about the dokumcular, stop being so dumb. They are a terrorist group linked with ISIS. They never have worked with the government nor do they have any ties with them. So, removing those content is going to imrpove this article in wich way? In your way because you think that Groups who have been accused by Turkey should not be mentiont? How does that make any sense? Gala19000 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The MLKP does operate in Kurdish populated areas like Tunceli and many others. Many of their members are kurdish as well (many communet party's have kurds in them). The source for this can be found eveywhere you go. This is a Turkish claim wich maybe should be mentiont under the other forces section. And once again, those groups don't have to be kurdish to be here. Groups who have ties with the pkk or wich are seen by the government as co operators are all mentiont here wich only is a good thing as it gives the viewer more information. Gala19000 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't separate Kurdish Hezbullah, it is still there in Kurdish side. It shoult not be in Kurdish side, it is Turkish organization fighting against the PKK and Turkey. It has supported Turkey and Turkey has supported it in 90's and it has also supported the PKK against Turkey. I should add Turkish Hezbullah to Turkish side because they have supported Turkey. This is my last comment, I don't care what you say because I really don't understand you. If Turkish organization has Kurdish members then it means it is Kurdish organization???? PKK has hundreds of Turks in their ranks, are they Turkish organization? You are trying to edit this article randomly and reversing my changes. Copy paste your answers to text file and read them. Maybe you could "realize" that they are against each other. Sorry, but I really don't understand your logic. And I will continue my editing and improvement of this article. Ferakp (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you are giving your last comment and then think you can do whatever you want? You think that wili work like that? Where did I say that they are a kurdish group? I only said that there are kurds in those groups and thats it. The important thing is that they are mentiont as on their side as those groups are/have been alleged by the government for co operation wich each other. Hezbollah has been on the kurdish sided and put apart to makenit clear that they are on the same side of the enemy's of the turkish government. Atm, there is no specific article for the Turkish-hezbollah conflict so it makes more sense to put it here as it is also known as thhe Kuridish hebollah. Gala19000 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You ain't improvig anything. Instead, you delete groups wich give more information about the conflict that it doesn't just include the pkk and yps/ydgh. Me, just like any others have also the right to edit those article by using first the talk page. You on the other hand first changed the captured numbers before you talked on the talk page and still keep editing to your own will. Like I said many times earlier, stop being ignorant. Gala19000 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Should mention then by the hezbollah that it is neutral atm. The have stoped their activities in the last years. The fact that they call it 'Turkish' doesn't mean it also is. They c all any other group in the past as turkish as they were turkish citezens. Till the Kurdish hebollah gets it own conflxit page with Turkey and Pkk, they should be kept on the page till then. The communist groups on the other hand should and will stay like they did for the past years. You try to remove almost anything from the other forces page wich almost makes it look liek that the pkk doesn't have any ties with them wich is not true. The pkk and ypg even trained MLkP fighters in kobane/rojava norther syria in their fight against ISIs and also for a time against their fight against Turkey in clashed trough out southern Turkey. Search it up and you will see, or keep being ignorant and say again that they have to be removed because according to you and your 'reliable' sources the do somehow not belong in the list. Please keep talking on the talk page and till we come out to a conclusion me or you will edit then. Gala19000 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an add on, the other forces list also includes 'supported by groups'. The YPS for example could have been directly added as a pkk group but they act independently. They support the pkk in their fight against the governemnt, Turkey. Gala19000 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberbot II:, so are you asking us to review those references you added? Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of sourcless parties

Citation needed for HİK
PŞK needs citation, citation needed tag is good to add.
DHKP/C should be deleted, it is Turkish insurgency group not Kurdish insurgency group. Also, it has its own article: DHKP/C insurgency in Turkey. There is claimed cooperation between other Turkish communist parties that are allegedly cooperated with the PKK but never confirmed.
No citation or source which can support TKP-ML is in Kurdish side, requesting deletion.
MKP-HKO-PHG should be deleted, citation needed
Revolutionary Headquarter should be deleted.
TKEP should be deleted.


Two months ago I asked sources but no one added any sources. So I am going to change those. Need someones opinion.

Since nobody commented this request, I will start to apply those changes.Ferakp (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Jihad flag removed, they didn't belong to both Islamic parties, they have different flags. Also, Turkish communist parties have been deleted. Source was asked 6 times and no one added any source to confirm that those groups are in Kurdish side or active at all.

Source was asked for Turkish Hezbullah, a.k.a Kurdish Hezbullah that they are still supporting the Kurds in Kurdish side. However, since 2001 this groups has fought against both the Kurds and Turkish government and it is already mentioned in bottom of infobox. Feel free to undo if you think I am wrong.Ferakp (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kordestani: You can read above why MLKP doesn't belong here. Also, remember that MLKP came much later after to Turkish-Kurdish conflict but they are not a part of Turkish-Kurdish conflict. They active everywhere and their cause is much different than Kurdish issue. They cooperate sometimes but are not allies neither enemies.DHKP/C insurgency in Turkey Ferakp (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: Why has MLKP been removed but not Devrimci Karargah? A source was added for MLKP and it is known that the MLKP is a big ally of the PKK and is supporting the insurgency and the YPS as well as KCK in Iraq and Syria. I also heard that MLKP was Alevi Kurd. FugeeCamptalk 14:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@FugeeCamp: This article is related to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict: "" ..is an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups.."". MLKP is not Kurdish insurgent group, it's Turkish insurgent group, that's how it is described in books and publications. They have their own conflict between Turkey and themselves. They are cooperating with many other insurgency groups around the world and not only in Kurdish areas but everywhere, also in Europe. The main point here is that they are not Kurdish insurgent group and their main objective has nothing to do with the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. MLKP is not a Alevi Kurd. It's communist armed group. About Revolutionary Headquarter, it's very new organization and I am trying to find reliable sources about their objectives and members. I will probably remove it if I found any sources that they are like MLKP and they have their own objectives. Ferakp (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–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 to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The current title is too confusing, requesting a title change.

"Kurdish-Turkish Conflict" sounds like a conflict between Turks and Kurds in general. But Kurds in Iran, Syria, Iraq or Armenia are not involved in this conflict. KDP Kurds (also called Barzani Clan Kurds) in Iraq are actually Turkey's allies. Turkey also has around 50,000 to 90,000 Kurdish village guards which makes this a conflict between "Turks plus pro-Turkey Kurds vs pro-KCK Kurds" not a "Kurd-Turk conflict". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patetez (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree The title should be "Turkey–PKK conflict" like it used to be. Check "The conflict", "Human rights abuses", "Kurdish political movement" sections. The article simply contains actions of PKK (including Kurdistan Workers' Party#Related and associated organizations). Even though it was narrowed to "(1978-present)", in order to justify apparently, considering PKK was founded in 1978, it doesn't make sense to name the article as "Kurdish-Turkish conflict". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.27.105.193 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Belligerents section is a total mess.

PKK doesn't control KCK. KCK controls the PKK, HPG and YJA-STAR.

PJAK is the Iranian branch of PKK and has nothing to do with this conflict.

KDP/North is not involved in this conflict either.

YPS is controlled by KCK too.

PSK is an irrelevant organization to this conflict. Same with KKP.

Revolutionary Headquarter is not a Kurdish organization. Yet this conflict is called Kurdish-Turkish conflict.

YDG-H takes its orders from PKK.

Patetez (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on application of general sanctions on Kurdish–Turkish conflict

Friends, as a constant observer of articles on Kurdish–Turkish conflict, i would like to begin a discussion on applying general sanctions on all articles related to the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, broadly defined. Currently, much edit-warring is ongoing on related articles in light of the increased violence in South-East Turkey and North Iraq, involving Turkish military and PKK-affiliated rebels. Apparently, one user even self-published a "general sanctions" template concerning this conflict (Template:TPW&PKK sanctions now proposed for quick deletion), even though no general sanctions have officially been applied at this point. I'm herewith requesting editors' opinion of the issue of applying general sanctions and if relevant - the issue would be moved to an official discussion, possibly establishing to community sanctions on this topic at the later stage.GreyShark (dibra) 06:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek/Bulgarian support for Kurds ?

These claims are quite old and not backed by any references. Those countries should be removed from the infobox.

Denizyildirim (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree.GreyShark (dibra) 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. They have supported it dozens of books including hundreds of publications have mentioned them. This is conflict between Turkey and Kurdish groups and Greek still support some Kurdish groups. This is not only the article between Turkey and the PKK.Ferakp (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, since those claims are old, you ought to find some new ones. Denizyildirim (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading title

Considering (as an example) that throughout the 80's and in the early 90's the ethnic Kurd Turgut Özal was the prime minister and later president of Turkey when the conflict was at its highest, the title is very misleading. This is a conflict between the Republic of Turkey and the KCK (Koma Civakên Kurdistan). Ethnic groups cannot declare unilateral war or conflict on each other, only organisations such as states and separatist organisations can, and people, regardless of being Kurd or Turk, can choose to follow those organisations or not. Therefore the conflict is between the Republic of Turkey and the KCK (Koma Civakên Kurdistan), not Turks and Kurds. The title should be adjusted in my opinion and only leads to racism/ethnic tensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.182.240 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


Oppose There is other organizations than the KCK organization. For example, TAK is not part of KCK. Also, remember that KCK is a new umbrella organization and this article is related to the conflict since 1978. We don't even know is KCK going to be the same tomorrow or exist at all. About Özal, he was't considered as a Kurd since he born to a Turkish family with partial Kurdish roots. Only his mother was a Kurd but he didn't even speak Kurdish. Experts call this conflict as a Kurdish-Turkis conflict and they have good reasons for it.Ferakp (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


Agree Organizations that are under KCK (such as PKK, HPG, YDG-H and all the others) make up 99% of the fighting in this conflict. You talked about TAK yet TAK is a very small organization with less than a hundred members. TAK also shares the same ideology with the PKK and KCK (apoist ideology). A lot of experts also call this conflict a PKK-Turkey conflict all the time too. Also calling this conflict a "Kurd-Turk conflict" means that this an ethnic conflict yet only in Istanbul there are 3 million Kurds, also in Ankara and Izmir there 1 million Kurds yet we never hear about any type of ethnic armed clashes from those cities. --Patetez (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have to time repeat my sources again. The title was PKK-Turkey conflict and I requested to change it to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. I showed all resources, including international publications, books, studies, news and many other sources. We discussed about this with many users and you can read our discussion. Administrator and admins decided to change it after they saw sources and made the decision taking into account all comments and opinions. About the conflict name, you are wrong, it's called the Kurdish-Turkish conflict in international publications and there is tons of reasons for that. The Turkish publications call it the PKK-Turkey conflict but Wikipedia is not Turkish encyclopedia, it's neutral and independent encyclopedia. You are welcome to request the change if you can prove that it is the PKK-Turkey conflict and not the Kurdish-Turkish conflict with reliable and independent sources and publications. Just read my previous sources and you are welcome to oppose it if you have appropriate reason.Ferakp (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Captured soldiers and police officers

@EkoGraf: The number of captured soldiers and officers are added with their sources. You are not allowed to remove details and sources without appropriate reason. There is tons of sources about released PKK fighters. Gala also tried to add only currently captured soldiers and show only those who are still kept by the PKK but admins reversed his/her changes. 

Ferakp (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: I removed what possibly constituted original research because none of the sources cited a figure of 86. Combined possibly, but I saw a lot of room for overlapping. And again you say it was discussed here on the talk page, but I see only Gala's arguments (with which I agree) that only those currently captive should be included. You claim there are tons of sources about released PKK fighters but you haven't provided any. Where are they? And you said admins reversed his/her changes but you didn't provide me any diffs to confirm this. Also you said you are warning me and that you will report me. Warning me and going to report me for what if I may ask? EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I warned you to not involve in edit war. Otherwise I have to report you. There is no overlapping. Last time, Gala also said the same thing and I told her/him to show me which sources might overlap. I checked them one by one and there is no overlapping. If you believe there is overlapping, please let me know. We will discuss it. About released PKK fighter, just read reports how many "pkk" fighters Turkey has arrested and how many of them are still kept. Ferakp (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: First, that is not how Wikipedia works. You warn an editor when he does three reverts. If the editor does a fourth revert he has violated the 3RR policy and THAN you report him to the administrators. You warned me after just one revert I made here [3]. My first edit [4] was not a revert because I made an edit (with arguments in the edit summary). At this point you yourself have made two reverts of myself. Second, you still have not shown me the diff where you claim administrators affirmed your edits. Can you? Third, you are again talking about reports of PKK fighters being released but have not yet shown them. Will you? EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

PS You are also reverting back to the bolded part about the Kurds executed even though the section title Civilian casualties is already bolded. This makes an overemphasis on the Kurdish casualties claim over the general civilian casualties claim made by Turkey, possibly violating policy WP: UNDUEWEIGHT and WP policy on neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@EkoGra: So, according to your logic, I would had to warn you after your third revert? That's what you want to say? About administrator edit, check the edit history of the article. You see that he reversed Gala edits. I used Wikipedia chat to ask them. Here is one source for you, [6]. About bolding it's not about neutrality. Bolded section is about all casualties. According to Turkey, only ~5000 civilians have died but according to independent sources, more than 18,000 civilians have died. That's why I bolded it becasue Turkish claims in unlikely to be true. Remember that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea and China. Check the Press freedom index. Turkish sources, especially newspapers are very biased and unreliable. You can revert the bold section if you don't like it. Ferakp (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: It is not my logic, instead it is Wikipedia policy per which you are obligated. Read here Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. When a third revert occurs you warn the editor in question, when a fourth happens you report him. At the moment, I have made only one revert, you have made two. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP policy, quote - If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing... etc. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: You asked for cases of overlapping: 24 security members captive as of September 2015 [5], 2 captured October 2015 [6], 20 captive as of December 2015 [7]. The 20 captive as of December 2015 figure more than likely includes those captive as of September or those captured in October. EkoGraf (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@EkoGra: About warning sorry if you thought I am threatening you. It was more warning. However, I agree with your current edits. About that bold thing, you can remove the bold if you don't like it.Ferakp (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/iste-teror-bilancosu-23134800
  2. ^ http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bir-donemin-aci-bilancosu-9914612
  3. ^ http://www.radikal.com.tr/politika/30-yilin-teror-bilancosu-35-bin-576-olu-1118893/
  4. ^ http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/815728-terorun-aci-bilancosu
  5. ^ http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/iste-teror-bilancosu-23134800
  6. ^ http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/446212-gozaltindaki-butun-pkklilar-serbest
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party_insurgency/Archive_1&oldid=1204132454"