Talk:Operation Claw-Sword

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

Cengo-1992 I have reverted your latest edit because it refers to 2 Turkish civilian casualties which is already included in the combatants3 section of the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

@Des Vallee: I think some of your additions to the reactions section should be removed because they are quite irrelevant. The alleged reaction of Iran should be removed entirely as its a claim made by a Lebanese official which is subsequently denied as having taken place by a Turkish official. The condemnation minor EU parties like The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL is also quite irrelevant to be included in the article. Ecrusized (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized No the Iranian position is incredibly important. Likewise The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL is not a "minor party" it controls 5% of the EU parliament, it's constituent parties control various government such as Greece, with Syriza twice being elected a majority in Greece, as well as other parties that hold substantial influence. Des Vallee (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: The Iranian position is not even factual, just a claim made by a Lebanese politician which has been denied. It should be removed for that reason. The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL party's relevance in Syria is probably zero. It is quite off topic. I don't like bloating the reactions without those active in Syria, like Russia, US and Iran. Ecrusized (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized It is alleged and it is stated to be so, scandals that are alleged are to be stated, see WP:REL. The section of the The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL is clearly notable. Take the 2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria#Reactions which also mentions specific parties reactions. Des Vallee (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: This has nothing to do with a scandal. It is not factual primarily and for that reason it cannot be included. You are comparing this to another article, WP:OTHERSTUFF. That article you're linking also does not include trivial reactions, it has a separate article where reactions are included Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Ecrusized (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: Also your edit here [1] citing Reuters is editorialized, there is no use of the word "condemnation" by US officials. "WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Turkish air strikes in northern Syria threatened the safety of U.S. military personnel and the escalating situation jeopardized years of progress against Islamic State militants, the Pentagon said on Wednesday." The article you've cited is citing this second article. Ecrusized (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized The term "The public comments represent the strongest condemnation by the United States of NATO-ally Turkey's air operations in recent days against a Kurdish militia in northern Syria to date" is condemnation. Likewise the DOD statement states clearly. Although a general wording is potentially better, I am going to generalize the statement from this source. Likewise you are doing incorrect formatting. It includes the reactions of major and some minor political parties, moreover the same basis of inclusion of political parties there applies here, that being that political parties reactions to events meet the onus of inclusion, and it is strange for you to state otherwise. Des Vallee (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: No its not a condemnations, that is what Reuters is interpreting it as. US officials did not say "We condemn this" etc. If you would like to add it please add it with a word to word of what it states because I'm getting tired of having to redo your edits after you add them with changed wording and original research. Ecrusized (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: Also a another note for your future edits, do not use terms such as "many countries" or "several politicians" WP:WEASEL. If the source already says which countries and which politicians have made that statement, directly include their names. Ecrusized (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You lack much in Wikipedia so I am going to attempt to explain this, if a source states that x is condemnation. Regardless of your opinions on "editorilization" it is included, likewise the reaction absolutely fits the criteria of inclusion as it is a major political party. The term of plural is used when there is to many individual examples, as an example if is a list of 3 or more countries, you can use "many" as to not bloat the article which apparently you care about. Des Vallee (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Three is not what you would call "many" that is what call that a "few". Yes I am not new on Wikipedia, but I know English better than you and you are doing more harm to the article than you think. In almost all your edits you are adding something completely different of what the source you have cited states. Possibly in a attempt to avoid copying it, but this results in you adding original research. Ecrusized (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for an example, for the past 2 days you have been reverting my edits on what Iran's reaction is supposedly saying. At first you added, an allegation by a Lebanese politician, which claimed Iran was trying arrange a meeting between Assad and Erdogan. You added it as "Iran called for a ceasefire between SDF and Turkey". Now this is completely false, and even though I've been here shorter than you I know that is not allowed. Ecrusized (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert you changes saying "alleged," nor was any revert done to Iran's response it was not reverted, this is plain false. Moreover this "reverts" have not taken place in two days, no large section was reverted before three hours ago. Des Vallee (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: Look here for example. Just minutes ago you've added something incorrectly again.

You added: Pentagon opposes any military action by Turkey

What the source actually said: We continue to oppose any uncoordinated military action in Iraq that violates Iraq’s sovereignty.

Now you might think this is OK, but. There is no reference to opposing "Turkish operation", there is no reference to "Syria" and it states, opposing an "uncoordinated operation". I hope you can see what's wrong with this. Ecrusized (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized The article has verbatim a section called "Pentagon opposed to military action." I don't know if you didn't see this or if you thought it was a different section, but you need to read things carefully its very important. Des Vallee (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: OK look, I don't know if you want someone besides me to explain this to you but I will try to explain again. YES, the article has a title called "Pentagon opposed to military action". Now here is the important bit, that is what the VOA News journalist is WRITING it as, and here is what the DOD spokesman actually said quote: "We continue to oppose any uncoordinated military action in Iraq that violates Iraq’s sovereignty". Which the VOA reporter is editorializing it from. Do you think VOA's editorialization is the original statement? Or is it what the OFFICIAL Pentagon spokesperson has said? Ecrusized (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized The VOA is a reliable news source and thereby is used as the reliable source for claims, moreover "Oppose any uncoordinated military action" means opposing military action, it's text is directly there. This is incredibly basic stuff and a key principle of editing, and understanding sources. Des Vallee (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: Report me to the noticeboard for edit warring so that an administrator can explain this to you. I will self revert as soon as an admin responds. I'm done talking to you. Ecrusized (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized There is nothing I can do to explain this to you? Des Vallee (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: No. Report me to the edit war noticeboard. I have self reverted but I still want somebody else to intervene in this circle of a discussion here as neither you nor I can reach a consensus. Ecrusized (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ecrusized Thank you! I want to say I think you have made some fairly good edits you just to need to learn some things on Wikipedia. I will not be doing so now, as there is no reason to. I am opening up a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get a third opinion and to hopefully resolve this. Des Vallee (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Rfc

There is a current dispute on the section of international responses. The bombing campaign of Syria has been met with hard opposition from the US, and most sources have consensus on this, with the US publicly stating it opposes any Turkish intervention, with US troops being stationed with the SDF in Syria.12 Ecrusized wants to include a series of quotes of US condemnation to the 2022 Istanbul bombing yet I find these quotes are completely unrelated, they should be included in that article not this. The text of "The Pentagon opposes any Turkish intervention" is directly sourced from the DoD quote "The Department of Defense continues to oppose any military action that destabilizes the situation in Syria or violates Iraq’s sovereignty through military actions uncoordinated." I find this is a good description of the source yet Ecrusized states this is editorialization. A third opinion would be generally helpful. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: I don't want to include quotations related to Istanbul bombing, US has condemned the bombing of Turkish border town in Gaziantep during this conflict, on 21 November. That is what I had included, which you are reverting. I would also like to include direct statements of US officials in quotes, instead of giving a brief summary of them saying "US condemned it" etc. Here is the diff of the dispute. [2] Ecrusized (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability

@ThePaganUK: I have reverted your latest edit because it lacked substance. There is no reason to write about every soldier or fighter killed during the conflict unless it stands out for a particular reason. Such as, resulting in an escalation of the conflict. Or it occurs for the first time during the conflict. Or otherwise is significant. The article is currently very brief, and adding every single killing would disrubt its weight. 16:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Ecrusized (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

Casualties and losses per Turkey are not "none". The numbers have increased and need to be updated. 46.31.118.93 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)