Talk:Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency


German Support PKK

edit

|   Germany[1]

References

  1. ^ "Kandil'de vurulan Alman ajanın tuhaf hikayesi". Haberler.com. Archived from the original on 12 Mar 2017. Retrieved 26 August 2015 Çarşamba 08:58. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Casualties

edit

I have posted around 20 referenced sources about casualties including external operations. But for some reason, the site is constantly being changed to different casualties. No the crisis group is not a valid reference. The site itself claims; "Crisis Group assumes that total PKK fatalities are higher than this public tally." The crisis group is not a valid reference. But for some reason all the sources i have sent with years of background, including terorsehitleri.com which has literally every single turkish soldier killed by terror organizations as far as 1970 including their name, picture, place of death, date of death, cause of death, the place they were buried at, the last place they were serving in, their rank, their birth date, their birth place, name of father, name of mother, their level of education, their marital status, number of their children, background and the places their names were given to (like schools etc.) Including some civillians and teachers aswell. Yet you claim crisis group which says their sources are unreliable, is a reliable source. TRAVERA1 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for using the talk page. First of all, the conflict with the SDF/YPG already has its own page (see Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war). And there the total Turkish losses are around 300 in total, which includes the cross border operations agaibst both, ISIS anf the YPG. The crisis group is a recognized neutral source and has been very accurate with its numbers on southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. Their latest numbers are 1,443 Turkish losses. Even if you would add the Syrian war losses it would be around 1,700 losses in total. You on the other hand use unreliable sources and mix it up and get something above 2,000 losses since 2015... how? Look up at the Turkish losses from Operation Peace Spring and Olive branch. If you add that all up you won't even come close to 2,000 losses. Besides this, adding now the Syrian conflict to this page is unnecesary as I said earlier, it already has its own page, literally.It only makes this page more confusing and harder to read. So my idea is to remove the spillover part of Syria, as it already has its own page, and just focus on southeastern Turkey and Iraq. Perhaps add a link on the page for the YPG conflict in syria. SarajevMoska (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
and on the crisis group part, they are the only neutral source that does its research well. Of course they won't always be 100% accurate regarding the PKK losses. So what are you gonna do about that? Just use Turkish sources then? This is Wikipedia and it should remain mostly neutral. At least thats my opinion. SarajevMoska (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Its staying neutral, i havent been using state ran sources as references. But really, if you look at it, the amount of PKK militants that ive gathered up on all the other sources match up with the Anadolu Agency's last toll on PKK losses. 35k~
Same with turkish losses, tally up all the sources, you get 2000+.
I suggest u to check out the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)#Before 2012 ceasefire and Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)#Since 2013: from ceasefire to new confrontations. Includes the casualties pre-2015, which the crisis group doesnt have any info about TRAVERA1 (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The pre-2015 losses were not from the crisis group, they were official Turkish reported losses. But even after 2015 the Turkish reported losses and the crisis group reported losses were almost equal. Now however you come up with something above 2,000 killed since 2015 which is simply impossible. You are adding up multiple sources with each other which just becomes chaotic. You also changed the PKK losses to above 100,000... Thats simply ridiculous. In Turkish they usualy use the term neutralized for that. Even if those numbers would be 100K that would not mean that they were all killed.
I also just noticed that your since 2015 added security losses are completely wrong as well. How did Turkey lose 733 securty forces in just a few months in 2015? Even more than 2016, when most of the fighting and attacks happened? I,m gonna remove that as well cuz your sources are completely wrong and you mixed everything up.just look at thjs repiort from cnn Turk in 2017. It says that since 2015 1,212 security forces were killed. Your numbers are 100% wrong as you mix up multiple sources.https://www-cnnturk-com.org/v/s/www.cnnturk.com/amp/turkiye/iste-2005-2017-arasinda-sehit-verilenlerin-ve-gazilerin-sayisi?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=Van%20%251%24s&aoh=17009220876349&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnnturk.com%2Fturkiye%2Fiste-2005-2017-arasinda-sehit-verilenlerin-ve-gazilerin-sayisi SarajevMoska (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
indepdent sources as this https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/turkey-s-pkk-conflict-death-toll put the number on 40.000 and not the older unrealistic claims used by unreliable sources. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Shadow4dark (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That page is outdated. The fiercest point of conflict happened after that article was released, see #Casualties TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the PKK casualties after the article was released (mid-2016), 30k more PKK members have been killed. The page also doesnt include any of the YPG casualties, nor any captured members. It also doesnt even have enough reliable evidence to show how many members were killed each year. but the current ones do.
They are also not the most reliable either.
"The Swedish ONG Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research proved in 2005 that the ICG board of directors' had close ties to Western governments (PKK support considering the USA supports them.), a lack of independent scholars, and an absence of an objective standard theoretical framework. https://web.archive.org/web/20070928061220/http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/pressinf/2005/pi219_IntCrisisGroup.html"
altho the current sources dont really seperate captured or killed so it would be better if it was 108k killed or captured. and im not too sure if the year by year #casualties section include casualties from external operations. so there might be whole 23k casualties that needs to be removed TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
still other reliable sources put the death toll on 40.000 https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/1/13/turkey-launches-airstrikes-against-kurdish-rebels-in-iraq-and-syria. And these sources are more reliable then aa see WP:RSPSS yes you are correct that the numbers will climb up if you add ypg casualties but you need replace the unreliable sources and seperate the pkk and ypg casualties as it does not match the above sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
i didnt just use AA, only for the most recent casualties most of which arent even government led agencies. like memurlar.net
Al jazeera havent even done a proper background research about the casualties of the entire war either they just put that at the end of the page which is just about some air strikes turkey has conducted. I can pull any page that is unrelated to the actual topic as long as it has "more than 40k have been killed since the start of the conflict." and call it a day. it doesnt specifically say 40k, nor 40k PKK members, if you combine all the casualties of the conflict it totals up to 85k. TRAVERA1 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
look my point is other sources put the number on 40.000 if you want include ypg it need be separated as it does not match overal casualties. Also this page is primarily a pkk conflict and not Turkish- Kurdish conflict Shadow4dark (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
YPG and PKK are the same thing, PKK has been fighting alongside YPG in syria and many pictures of YPG members are seen with flags and patches of Abdullah Öcalan (founder of the PKK, and not related to the foundation of the ypg or ypg itself, yet YPG still uses him as their idol). They have the same ideologies and leaders.
Theyre both also apart of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK). The belligerents tab also includes PYD/YPG alongside PKK.
The whole entire page itself includes and mentions YPG many times and also includes operations conducted by Turkey against YPG.
By your saying how we should seperate YPG from PKK because "they arent the same thing", you should completely erase YPG from the page. TRAVERA1 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, ypg should removed here as they are one of the primary opponents here Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war and not inside Turkey. But both their total casualties need be put here and the infobox needs a update Kurdish–Turkish conflict Shadow4dark (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Should we still include the information by https://www.memurlar.net/album/10845/iste-yillara-gore-etkisiz-hale-getirilen-pkk-li.html ? I also have shown that ICG isnt the most reliable info as countries and organizations often bribe the Crisis Group to change the statistics TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes fine, the sources says "neutralized" meaning dead, wounded and surrendered. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The term neutralized doesn't go for wounded PKK fighters, its just killed or captured.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/turkish-security-forces-neutralized-44-terrorists-last-week/3131471 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/turkish-security-forces-neutralized-45-terrorists-last-week/3106243 "Turkish authorities use the term "neutralize" to imply that the terrorists in question surrendered or were killed or captured." not wounded. Ao192 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Turkish casualty citations

edit

Why are there so many citations in the casualties and losses part of the sidebar? If it's controversial, 5 or 6 reliable sources should be enough, but 22 citations seems kind of overkill Noob10293 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the sources talk mention the casualties that happened over a long time period, but dont mention some of the recent years, then the sources that mention casualties happened in the recent years only talk about that one year. and to have a more exact casualties number, there are some sources that only talk about a few Turkish soldiers who were killed very recently Ao192 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
First, combining the casualty numbers kind of sounds like WP:OR. Also, are you sure there aren’t sources that talk about the casualty numbers from 2015 to the present? Plus, even if there aren’t any sources that talk about that, it still doesn’t really justify 22 citations instead of just 5 or 6. Third, I appreciate your devotion to accuracy, but wouldn’t adding up the individual soldiers risk double counting? Noob10293 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, we definitely cannot reference a spreadsheet adding the casualties section up, this is the definition of original research. I've restored the Crisis Group figures and their consolidated estimate from the Turkish Government. Soapwort (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something needs to be done about the excessive citations. For starters an {{Excessive citations}} tag can be added to help the cleanup. In addition majority of excessive sources are in Turkish which are hard to impossible to verify the veracity and importance of for vast majority of English-Wiki editors. As a Turkish speaker myself reading some of the sources, many seem to have questionable notability to subject matter, for example next to casualties many of the sources are just news stories about PKK terrorist attacks that happened. Emre Özgür Yildirim (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2024‎ (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

edit

Link "AA" in (AA estimate) in the Casualties and losses sidebar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anadolu_Agency Noob10293 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This should absolutely be extended permanently since it is highly likely the page will be a target for vandalism with the latest Turkish claim of possible Kurdish attack on an Aviation site in Ankara. 216.180.4.77 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

PKK’s “supported by” section

edit

The “supported by” section sounds like it was edited by a Turkish nationalist. Half of the countries listed there as supporting the PKK are just not true, and half of the sources are Turkish propaganda. The only countries that are generally accepted to have backed the PKK are Gaddafi’s Libya, Syria, and the USSR. The US source also is talking about the YPG, not the PKK. I also might mention the fact that Turkey has virtually no states supporting it, despite the huge support they received from other NATO states. It creates this weird Turkish nationalists vision of Turkey somehow being against the world, when in reality it’s quite literally the opposite. Please remove most of these countries at add the countries that backed Turkey Serok Ayris (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"I personally consider myself a Communalist and Apoist. My main inspirations include Murray Bookchin, Abdullah Ocalan and many other PKK leaders like Mustafa Karasu and Bese Hozat."
This is in your account page.. Ao192 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay? I’m acknowledging my biases. Doubt you could ever do the same. So what, I’m still right. This page looks like a Turkish nationalist’s fantasy. The world is not in some grand conspiracy against Turkey, and none of the sources even conclude what putting those countries in the “supported by” section would imply (at least not any of the good sources that aren’t Turkish propaganda) Serok Ayris (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
there are blatant pictures of american soldiers with YPG members with their flags bright and their uniforms shining.. so turkish propaganda? most of the countries that "support pkk" are claims made by the turkish government and is said so next to the name of the countries Ao192 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but this is about the kurdistans workers party insurgency, not the YPG insurgency. The YPG is based in Syria and mainly fights ISIS, not Turkey. The US only helped them against ISIS, so I think the YPG should be moved to the supported by section or more countries added to the supported by section for turkey Noob10293 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So how come the PKK uses US-weaponry against turkey, theres even a video of a PKK member shooting down an AH-1 cobra with an american made stinger.
tons of videos of PKK using US made TOWs to target Turkish positions.
many american-made weaponry used by PKK and later captured by turkey, like thermal cameras, optics, M16s, M4s etc.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=1992+%C5%9F%C4%B1rnak
this documentary is about a turkish soldier who was involved in the PKKs attack in Şırnak during 1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1992_%C5%9E%C4%B1rnak_Clashes
He says in the documentary that before any Turkish news agency reported about the battle in Şırnak, an American news agency reported it. How come, 0 journalists or anyone in the city and before any regional news agencies has time to report this event, a country that is a continent and an entire ocean away from Turkey reports it first.
He also says that American helicopters came down by the mountain regions near Şırnak and delivered supplies etc. to PKK.
unless you know more than a guy that was involved in some of the heaviest fightings in the conflict i'd like to hear your stories. 🙂
https://www.ormer.sakarya.edu.tr/20,3,,192,abd_pkk_yi_neden_destekliyor_.html
https://www.setav.org/yorum/abd-pkkyi-neden-destekliyor references of UNIVERSITIES about the topic of US support to the PKK.
And YPG is just a continuation of PKK; https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-46930950 Heres Senator Lindsey Graham saying YPG is just the political arm of PKK.
https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/ashton-carterdan-onemli-ypg-pyd-ve-pkk-aciklamasi Ashton Carter on YPG = PKK
https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/pkk-ve-pyd-europol-raporunda-/613026 reference made by AA, but its talking about europols report on how YPG is a continuation of PKK
https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/b053-fighting-isis-road-and-beyond-raqqa
https://anlatilaninotesi.com.tr/20170502/soros-kurdugu-orgut-ypg-pkk-suriye-kolu-1028316305.html International Crisis Group reference on how YPG is just the arm of PKK in Syria.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/turkey-kurds-trump/525984/ Andrew Exum says "YPG is a terrorist organization, theres no difference between YPG and PKK."
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/YPG#/media/Dosya:Kurdish_YPG_Fighters_(23180094893).png And since YPG isnt affiliated with PKK, how come YPG proudly waves the flag of Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of PKK, who had absolutely nothing to do with YPG's creation and was in prison for more than 10 years while YPG was being founded and still is. many YPG members carry a picture of him as an arm patch aswell.
YPG and PKK have the same goals and ideologies, if you continue to say YPG =/= PKK, you are just forcing yourself to be blind. Ao192 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So your arguments essentially boil down to "PKK and YPG are basically the same org". I don't necessarily disagree, but in the main insurgency against Turkey this fact is irrelevant. Unless you can prove that the US directly supports the PKK/HPG in their fight against Turkey, the YPG being tied to the PKK and being supported by the US is irrelevant for this particular page. If you were to put the YPG being supported by them on a page about YPG vs. SNA and/or TSK that would be fine, but in this case it's clear you're trying to make a different point by including that. As for the arguments you try to make about the actually relevant topic of discussion here (that being whether or not the US directly supports the PKK/HPG against Turkey), none of them hold up. So what if the PKK has American weapons, so does every insurgent group in Iraq, especially groups that went after them. The vast majority of the PKK's arsenal is old, often Soviet era weapons purchased off the Iraqi black market. I also do think I know better than what one random soldier claims considering it flies in the face of everything the US was doing to support Turkey at the time. Please stop trying to project Turish nationalist narratives onto history. The PKK was not created by the US, and Turkey is not the victim of US imperialism because of such a made up narrative Serok Ayris (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
and other than the countries that support pkk which turkey claims, none use turkish sources as a primary source Ao192 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Uh, the AA is used as a source for the US. Noob10293 (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
do you not see the pictures of YPG members posing with American soldiers? and AA isnt the only source saying USA supports YPG/PKK, theres another one. I can add more references if you want;
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/30/us-support-ypg-syrian-kurds-turkey-erdogan-pkk/
https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/us-joins-turkey-pkk-fight-northern-syria
https://mepc.org/commentaries/us-ypg-relationship-us-foreign-policy-future-kurds-syria-and-turkey/
https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/war-on-terror/turkiye-reiterates-call-on-us-to-cease-support-for-ypg
just search up USA and YPG in google you will find tons of photos of American soldiers hanging around with YPG members. Ao192 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
daily Sabah and AA are unreliable for such claims Shadow4dark (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you find some reliable sources about countries supporting turkey and make an edit request to make the article more neutral Noob10293 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply