Talk:Operations Claw-Eagle and Tiger

Rename ?
It now appears to be a twin operation. Yug (talk)  14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should rename. Konli17 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Operation Claw-Tiger has just been created. I believe its contents ought to be merged with this one, and this article renamed accordingly. Konli17 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Same opinion here: merge. Maybe Operations Claw-Eagle and Claw-Tiger (2020) ? I'am not native speaker, do you have something better ? Drop the 2020 ? Yug (talk)  20:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We could use something similar to 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, but I see now that Operation Claw (2019) is described as ongoing, so maybe both of these articles ought to be merged with that one. One thing is clear to me though, there's no point having two small articles for these events. Konli17 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ibox
Why has it been removed? Jim Michael (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess because many of the mentioned are not really a belligerent in the operations, but a targetParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I formerly copied pasted the infobox from the previous, 2019 operation. Then emptied or updated the fields requiring it. Yug (talk)  10:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Turkish civilian casualties in Turkey, due to alleged PKK attack be included in the article?
On 17th June, a roadside IED explosion killed 4 civilian workers in Turkey's Sirnak Province. Turkish Government said PKK was responsible for it, and further claimed it to be a response to this operation. Should this be included in the article? Please comment using "Include" or "Not include". DarthMaul15 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging users involved with the article. DarthMaul15 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I actualy don’t think that it should be included. Reason why is quite simple, its not in the operation zone + these attacks in south east Turkey by the pkk happen like each week. So adding all these attacks on the article doesn’t make much sense. So not including it would be the right thing Maistara (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maistara. Konli17 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not include, the mine blast is unrelated with the operations mentioned in the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No include [EDIT:no include in the infobox]. 1) Not the area of concern. 2) It's a reccurent patern not realistically specific to the current operation. 3) Did PKK made such claim ? As far i we know : no. 4) Turkey is know to work hard to link any and everything back to PKK to justify its aventurism. So we need more that a politician statement. Yug (talk)  00:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I changed my position above to "no include in the infobox's tally". It is not in the scope of the operation's fights, but It should be mentionned in the article. Yug (talk)  13:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion shortly Include  We must add to article because even PKK claimed it to be a response to this operation or we can add this on Reactions section that TAK militants targeted workers to response the operation or we must open a new page As the PKK massacres or war crimes.. It is ironically how WORKERS PARTY targets workers.. I want to have a suggestion to labeling this operation as ANTI TERROR operation.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not telling those attack list as casualties but listed as response of TAK which your logic guys we cannot add protests either its also not in N Iraq.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cengizsogutlu's suggestion about mentioning the attack in Northern Kurdistan in the Reactions section has merit. Konli17 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not include, there needs to be a reliable source stating so and there also I don't think there is merit in including it. Vallee01 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Sources.
The basis of these sources are horrible almost none of them are written from a NPOV and are the absolute definition of horrible propaganda, and they stink of such Turkish Propaganda that it is impossible not to see. Almost none of these sources can be used for Wikipedia! The sources used are almost all written by Pro-Turkish Government organizations or directly run by the Turkish Government, this is utterly unacceptable.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkey-launches-operation-claw-eagle/1877001 Literally the first line: Turkey has launched Operation Claw-Eagle against *terrorists* in northern Iraq, the *Defense Ministry* (They=Turkey) announced early Monday. Propaganda masquerading itself as a "Source" in plain sight for all to see. This source is by Anadolu Agency a news organization that is run and completely funded by the *Turkish Government*, whatever the Turkish government says to Anadolu Agency they will do. This absolutely fails as a verifiable source.

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/war-on-terror/turkey-launches-operation-claw-eagle-against-pkk-terrorists-in-northern-iraq Literally the title: Turkey launches Operation Claw-Eagle against PKK *terrorists* in northern Iraq "Daily Sabah (lit. "Daily Morning") is a Turkish pro-government daily,[2][3][4][5] published in Turkey." This utterly fails as a verifiable source. https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-destroys-81-pkk-targets-during-operation-claw-eagle-in-northern-iraq-37280

https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-destroys-81-pkk-targets-during-operation-claw-eagle-in-northern-iraq-37280 A Section: The counter-terrorism operation allows Turkey to defend its borders and people by destroying PKK hideouts and supply lines in the mountainous region. Turkish World is run and funded entirely by the Turkish State don't need to say anymore.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-iraq-idUSKBN23L0UV Only source in the first line which is both verifiable and NPOV.

https://aktifhaber.com/gundem/msb-duyurdu-mahmur-kampi-cevresi-ve-sengale-hava-saldirisi-h146415.html Source which is of NPOV.

There is more but this so to simply state that fundamentally the article is a mess. Wikipedia must be a place of Neutrality of Point of view and allowing blatant propaganda to be used as a "source" is horrid and simply exists to misinform readers. Vallee01 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What about pro PKK sources?? You keep all pro pkk sources but delete only pro turkish?? Shadow4dark (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are pro-PKK sources then they as well need to be deleted, I don't think I need to explain why "News Groups" with direct links or even directly controlled by the Turkish Government or the PKK should not be allowed, these groups will state anything the Turkish government or the PKK states, you *can't* ever use these sources for anything relating to casualties or military actions because they are not a voice of neutrality but instead are a voice of what these groups want people to hear. Vallee01 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the absence of neutral sources, I don't see a way around this problem. Turkish and Kurdish media are often the only sources for casualty figures. As long as their bias is made clear, I don't see a problem with using them. Konli17 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * They are terrorists. PKK is declared a terrorist-organization by many states, including the US. So don't cry, cry baby.BergamottenTee (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

300 soldiers really ?? =D.
How did PKK kill 300 a whole regiment Turkish soldiers can you explain it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, it doesn't make sense. ANF-News is not a reliable source. They publish high numbers to moralize the pkk, but they have no foundation whatsoever. I mean: If they manage to kill 300 soldiers all by themselves, why do they ask the west for help and sanctions against turkey to begin with? It makes no sense. PKK did lost a heavy amount of fighters, but they only publish it years later. _ BergamottenTee (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Result field
No matter how many people try and use Suriyakmaps on Twitter, they are not a reliable reference under any circumstances. See WP:SPS, random people on Twitter can claim whatever they like but it's not going in this article. This website does not appear to have any reputation for fact checking and accuracy, so not a reliable reference. Same for this website, and neither reference Turkish Armed Forces capture 222 square kilometres (86 sq mi) of territory anyway. Google Maps link has a disclaimer right at the top saying "This map was created by a user", not a reliable reference. FDW777 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)