Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2

Sourcing issues part 1

Despite the fact that the US acknowledged that PKK is responsible for the killings of the hostages he deliberately deletes it, stating something like that reuters is not an official source.

Looking into his profile shows: "Northern Kurdistan (Kurdish Areas occupied by Turkey)" there is no occupied areas. It's all turkey according to international law. On the one hand, he does not accept official international laws with regards to the legitimacy of turkey's borders, on the other hand he himself demands "official" sources, although reuters is credible enough. Doublestandard at its finest. Please exclude him from this article, he isnt neutral at all. BergamottenTee (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

He added "PKK enters Southern Turkey" eventhough the link he shared doesn't mention anything like that, and he reverted it after someone corrected it. Also the hostages were taken off-duty, one of them being on the way to his wedding, or on a family trips, so they were civilians. Ödegay31 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, his intentions seem fishy. Just because someone is a soldier for example, doesnt mean he is not a civilian - I mean, he is and was civilian most of the time. They did not get into custody during a fight, they were kidnapped DURING the peace processes as far as I know. That guy Des Vallee is imo definetly a pkk troll. BergamottenTee (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Soldiers - even when off-duty - aren't civilians. The ibox says all 13 were civilians, but the third paragraph of the Operation section says 6 were soldiers and 2 police. The article shouldn't contradict itself. Jim Michael (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish authorities announced that the 13 people that got killed were vatandas translated to civilians. Those are not military nor armed personnel. I think the authorities know it better then you

Moving to the PKK victory claiming that PKK entered southern Turkey while the meanwhile the sources never stated anything that like, falsely claiming sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaYunus01 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee is a troll, undo every vandalism he is doing here. He wants to suggests that turkey was defeated and thus pkk could enter Turkish soil, but no proof provided. There is still a buffer zone conquered by turks. That guy is a joke. BergamottenTee (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah and he also magically claims that Turkey didn't make any progress, which Turkey did as we saw footage (From PKK themself) that Turkey landed on the Gare mountains, kid is just dreaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaYunus01 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, they are not able to win a fight', so they create online a scenario where they won. It is impossible to believe anf-news. Too often their lies were exposed. Back in 2018 they said that afrin will be turks' grave only to admit few months later they lost it. Why should turkey kill its own citizens? And why should they make it public? If the US admitted turkey bears responsibility, they all would agree - but given now, that US admits pkk bears responsibility they still try to push the notion turkish drones managed somehow to destroy a cave and kill the hostages, leaving pkk members unharmed.... wtf is this. BergamottenTee (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BergamottenTee You are extremely new to Wikipedia I can tell and you are being generally disruptive as well as making personal attacks. Stating things like "Des Vallee is a troll, undo every vandalism he is doing here. He wants to suggests that turkey was defeated and thus pkk could enter Turkish soil, but no proof provided, he is a joke" it's not vandalism it's sourced content. The sources are correct and you seem to have a completely pro-Turkish stance often with broken English. The body provides info, and I can't really think you are here to build an encyclopedia. The Turkish sources and Jeurselum post. There was no removal of content I simply added sourced content from the Jerusalem Post a reliable source. I also re-added PKK claims as you constantly removed them, no where was any content removed, sourced content was added. The random personal commentary on Afrin in Syria is completely unrelated to anything and is just a personal political rant. Des Vallee (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I You linked JPOST and its just Sett Franzman making non factual assumptions. And he blatantly even lies in the article, "There is no evidence of any “terrorist” attacks by the YPG or HDP and the PKK has stopped attacks on Turkey for years. ", yet in 2020 25% of the PKK clashes were in Turkey. There were also attacks in 2021 within Turkey. He says that PKK never posed threat to Turkey..... He's extremely POV pushing and also the article doesn't mention Turkish bombardments killing the hostages, can you post a direct Quote?

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/22472-Most-Turkey-PKK-engagements-in-2020-took-place-in-Kurdistan-Region,-conflict-watchdog-reports Ödegay31 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Victims are civilians

One must understand that many, if not all of the hostages were captured off-duty - they were not captured during a fight. So even if their profession is being a soldier/police, they still have to be considered civilians because they were takes hostage far away from battlefield during peace processes. _ BergamottenTee (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The circumstances of the kidnappings should be stated in the article. Even if soldiers & police were kidnapped when off-duty, it's incorrect to describe them as civilians. Jim Michael (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

They are not civilians. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The occupations of all the victims should be stated in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Use term hostages in place of prisoners?Cengizsogutlu (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete hostages?Shadow4dark (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The captives held by pkk were captured as civilians not in front either in barracks etc if for ex Taliban captures ex US soldiers, police of state workers they seen as civilians.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

+ They were captured as civilians not in front etcCengizsogutlu (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

hostages can be ussed on both not just civilians or soldiers, both can be hostages. Shadow4dark (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The circumstances of the kidnappings should be stated in the article. Soldiers & police aren't civilians even when off-duty. Jim Michael (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu Your position means nothing, provide reliable sources for them being civilians other wise it is complete original research. Des Vallee (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Word to the wise

One editor here was blocked as a sock, another was blocked indefinitely for blatantly violating all kinds of guidelines here pertaining to personal attacks. Everyone here is reminded that this is not a battleground, that editors are to assume good faith, and that they should speak to each other, not about each other, and in respectful ways. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tell me why you allow this source as for drone killings as fact? He claims "multiple sources" so in 2020 they knew that Turkey would be killing the hostages with drones during Operation Claw Eagle? https://apnews.com/article/4dd4686c4c62e3bd978cc34901ca87a4

Did you even read the sources Des Valles gave? It's one opinion of a journalist (Redacted), two non-sources irrelevant to this article one from being 2020, he also use to use an article from 2017 as source. His vandalism needs to stop. You claim "POV-Editor" warrior to BergamottenTee, by that standard it has to apply to Des Valles too.

Look at the sourches he gives ->

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/8d1c0a10-3277-42d4-9130-e74ea039972f 

https://apnews.com/article/4dd4686c4c62e3bd978cc34901ca87a4

https://timesofmiddleeast.com/turkey-escalates-assaults-in-opposition-to-pkk-rebels-throughout-northern-iraq/

Tell me how you can come to the conclusion that it was the turkish drone strike who killed the hostages from these sources? Ödegay31 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ödegay31 I'm not going to comment on the content or the sourcing, but your behaviour is out of line. Stop accusing other editors of vandalism. Do not accuse anyone of lying - it's fine to say that a source is contradicted by other, more authoritative sources, and that you believe it to be inaccurate, but to say someone is lying without very good sources directly supporting that (i.e. saying that they intentionally lied, not that they were wrong) is a violation of our BLP policy, which applies to all parts of the projects including talk pages. Make your points calmly and politely, this hyperbole is counter productive. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the operation from 10th February 2021 to 14th February 2021. Using sources from 2020, 2017 or anything before the Operations timeline and claiming it states the claims that Turkish drones killed the hostages for an event that happened between 10th February to 14th February of 2021 is done with bad intention and blatant lieing.....I think that fits into vandalism.....

Here is his claim -> Source claims that during the Operation Claw-Eagle 2 Turkish Drones killed the hostages ... The source he claims that support his view -> https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/8d1c0a10-3277-42d4-9130-e74ea039972f (From 2017)

https://apnews.com/article/4dd4686c4c62e3bd978cc34901ca87a4 (From 2020)

https://timesofmiddleeast.com/turkey-escalates-assaults-in-opposition-to-pkk-rebels-throughout-northern-iraq/ (From 10th February, the beginning of the operation, the article itself says No casualties had been reported, not a single mention of the hostages)

THIS IS BLATANT LIEING! HE's been doing it for days now! I want him to give me direct quotes from these sources he provides.... Ödegay31 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ödegay31, I've blocked your account from editing for making personal attacks. When the block expires, you may take up this discussion again, but you must not accuse other editors of lying. Make your argument about the content, not the motivations of other editors. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ödegay31, let me add that your comment, "why do you allow...", is ridiculous and not to the point. I'm not "allowing" sources or claims in the article: I'm disallowing personal attacks and harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you do is to take sides officially .. They did not make you an admin for banning the people... Duduee this encyclopedia has become officially biased.. Now i see edits like DIED are you serious?I have never seen such a biased admin. Oops The admin, who is not open to criticism, will now ban me for a different reason.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Valles if you gonna tell me they died by heart attack would be more convincing btw.. Someone is gibberish, another one is not open for to debateCengizsogutlu (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This encyclopedia turn into ethnic conflict and biased editing area..Let's write everybody's own opinion on everything. For ex put Nazi's claim victory in Normandy in info box etc cuz their propaganda radios tells lies ~to people in Berlin, while bombs were raining down on France. No one can admit defeat in an unfinished war, this is a golden rule. They do same stuff in this operation as well, if you chek PKK or pro leftist Iraqi Kurdish sources sure they will not accept it and make absurd claims.. I made the page for UAV munition MAM (Smart Micro Munition) . This munition cannot blow up the bottom cave bunker structure. imp ossi ble in terms of engineering. Turkey has BLU-109 bomb If this had been used they wouldn't have been able to get bodies from that building. From a technical perspective, this is rubbish. Even last months dozens of Turkish editors been banned cuz they told a the strategic city is falling during Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but they did not believe it and claimed that Armenia had regain the city.. After a few days what they said turned out to be true but they been banned. What i want to say even if you throw a nuclear bomb in an unfinished war, the sources of the other party will never accept defeat unless they surrender. But the truth is obvious. In this operation, the PKK lost its high level protected shelter and prison with dozens of hes mitilia The only thing they can claim as victory is their assassination of the hostages during the operation. For ex Its like isis claiming victory after losing one of the cities, that they cutted dozens of people, this is not considered a victory but well as a a quality inhumane crime. What they want to do is showing their selfs as freedom fighters to world opinion but in fact they are a far right marxist communist terrorist. I'm sorry, but this is nothing but Asymmetric warfare strategies. Same as turkey is not accepting the Armenian genocide in order not to take responsibility for what happens in the next. Truths cannot be covered up with lies, and cant painted with their own fake sources.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu No, it's just personal attacks makes collaboration impossible. I am not hurt by people calling me a troll I just am frustrated and don't want to edit Wikipedia when it happens, I assure you it's not new for me to deal with absolute incoherent personal attacks, but it shouldn't be encouraged on Wikipedia as it creates a toxic environment, editors shouldn't be demonizing other editors. An offhand mistake is perfectly fine being warned over it and responding by intentionally doubling down isn't. Des Vallee (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, I've just noticed these comments - I don't think I need to tell you that they're unacceptable, and you will indeed be blocked if you persist with this approach to discussions. As for your accusation of bias: I know nothing about this conflict, I had literally never heard of it before being made aware last night of the heat being generated on this talk page. If editors make personal attacks on any article talk page, such as accusing others of lying, their accounts will be blocked from editing - that's how it works. Keep it civil, and base your arguments on sources rather than personal knowledge - that is the best way to win support for your argument. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

Regarding the sentence which has been removed/reinstated several times in succession, there are some issues with it. First of all, per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the content of the body of the article. This sentence does not appear to be a summary of any content in the article itself, and so should not be in the lead anyway until something is added at an appropriate point in the article. More importantly, however, I don't see how the sources support the assertion. It's supported by three sources - the Jerusalem post does say that the operation was botched, but I can't see anything there about Turkish drones killing anyone. The Times of Middle East source says nothing about it being botched, or about drones killing anyone. The Associated Press source is from 2020 and appears to be about a different operation, so I can't see how it's relevant at all. Based on that, I can't see why this sentence belongs in the article - please can anyone wishing to reinstate it explain before doing so? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I can see what you are stating the main source we use is the JPost source which states that it was unlikely that the hostages were killed by shooting, and that there was an inline citation stating the contradiction in Turkey's official stance, and that it was likely it was from bombing. Overall I don't think such a section should belong in the lede, or at least not until stated in the body and it being note-worthy. With that in mind it is very noteworthy within the context of this article, as the main talking points throughout have been how the hostages have died. We already mention the deaths in the infobox but with that in mind it should be expanded throughout the article. I am going to work on this article some more to try to make it better. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I'm obviously missing something - where does the Jerusalem Post say that it is unlikely that they were killed by shooting, and that it is likely they were killed by bombing? I see some vague speculation in that source, but if you don't have anything more concrete than that it needs to stay out of the article. Stick to what we know for certain, leave speculation to journalists - we're an encyclopedia. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Section Is: "Ankara has a sophisticated army with excellent special forces and drones and intelligence, the idea that it botched the raid and all the people it was trying to find were killed appears unlikely, as usually in such raids, some hostages are injured or killed." So how should this be paraphrased? Des Vallee (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, it shouldn't - we can't use it. 'appears unlikely' is pure speculation, it's the opinion of that journalist. If they were a noted expert (e.g. a prominent academic) on the subject, one might argue that their opinion is WP:DUE, but as far as I'm aware they're just a regular journalist. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I can see your point however he has a PHD and is an academic. As seen here, he went to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem a well respected university, was a research associate at the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs a lecturer in American Studies at Al-Quds University and "has conducted research and worked for the JDC, The Shalem Center, the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies and as a Post-Doctoral at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was a Congressional intern for Congressman Jim Kolbe while studying at The University of Arizona." Upon looking for his PHD it very clearly look extremely qualified on the matter, as well as publishing well sourced academic papers, so it's therefor unfair in my view to just call him a journalist, he seems qualified. Des Vallee (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I confess I hadn't looked him up, I was just assuming her was a regular journalist. It's possible that his opinion might be WP:DUE in that case, but it would need to be attributed to him and provided in context. An example might be something along the lines of "Turkish military sources stated that blah blah blah<ref>, but Seth Frantzman, writing in the Jerusalem post, cast doubt on that.<ref>" GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit That sounds completely justified the best way to do it, perhaps some other sources could be used maybe even Turkish sources or the like. Des Vallee (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, yes - we first need to introduce and provide sources for the view that he is opposing. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit This specific source does not oppose so much as it states that it is unlikely. It is not a blanket statement that Turkey caused the death by bombing the cave, the source just states it's unlikely. So therefor I think paraphrasing his words with official statements would be the best solution, as an example: "(claim) state that it is unlikely it was caused by shooting." Des Vallee (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit In the mean time, I think it would be a good idea to add a section of the aftermath section, particularly this event in Turkish politics as the source (JPost) mostly deals with Erdogan using this as an excuse to ban pro-Democracy parties like the HDP and being used as an excuse against political rivals. Des Vallee (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee Reading through that Jerusalem Post article again, I'm not really sure what it is he's saying about the deaths. I don't see anything in it that suggests the deaths were due to bombings; it's clear that he doesn't trust the Turkish government, but he doesn't seem to have any ideas about what actually happened. You'd have to be very careful in writing anything based on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Indeed, he gives remarks that it may be due to bombing however the source simply states it's unlikely that it was caused due to execution, so therefor it would make sense to just put that in "Seth J. Frantzman however has stated that the cause of death being from execution is unlikely" it would be the best description we could give. Des Vallee (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I don't see anything as specific as that. He says the idea of a botched raid is unlikely, but I can't see anything that questions the idea that they were executed. He says that Ankara wants to assert that they were executions, and he says that you can't trust Ankara - but he doesn't actually say that they are unlikely to have been executions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit How about a quote directly from the source so "the idea that it botched the raid and all the people it was trying to find were killed appears unlikely." It's very direct and is the best way of formatting it. Des Vallee (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee JPost as source is invalid now, since ANF-news issued a new article stating that the hostages were killed most likely by the gas turkish forces allegedly used. The whole "killed by drone/airstrike" is invalidated just like that: "Probably everyone in this camp was shot after being killed by chemical gas. These are the first information we gathered."([1]). This contradiction must be stressed out - it once again discredited pkk's reliabilty enourmously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.196.38 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. One source does not invalidate another. The ANF source could potentially be used, but it too should be attributed to the HPG whose press office is making these statement, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice as fact. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit, I disagree with you. The JPost derived its conclusion based on pkk-media outlets like anf-news. Using jpost as a source doesn't make sense anymore, because the pkk itself acknowledges now, the hostages have experienced a shot to the head - now they pretend it was gas that killed the hostages and were later again shot by the turkish armed forces. This explanation doesn't make sense. Why would turkey start an operation to rescue the hostages, kill them with gas and shoot them in the head again? Even the US has confirmed PKK takes responsibilities, after a us-ambassador was invited. Probably pictures of the deads were shown to them. To summarize: Using jpost as a source is irrelevant because jpost's primary source - anf news - contradicted itself, stating "killed by artillery" first then "killed by gas and shot in the head afterwards". More importantly, how does the pkk suddenly know, the hostages got shot in their heads? Did they see the corpses? No? Then why do they acknowledge the turkish version with regards to the headshot? Addendum: just because the author has an phd doesn't make him qualified to give accurate or quotable conclusions. This is a typical "argumentum ad verencundiam" look it up, Wikipedia has an article on it.2A00:20:302F:E6E5:0:48:9F9D:BC01 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a lot of assertions here, but I see no references to support them. How do we know what the jpost's sources are? My own concern with the jpost piece is that it tells us little but that columnist's opinion, which is vaguely expressed. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I make assertion? You did read the article, didn't you? From where should Jpost derive its conclusion? He clearly gives the former point of view of anf-news. I mean look what he writes: "Turkey launches a new war or operation against the PKK every time the AK Party appears to be losing in the polls.", or "

The real story of the raid may be that Turkey was attempting to create an excuse for a new war, internally and externally." or "there is no evidence of recent PKK “terror” attacks" - he even puts 'terror' in quotation marks... or "If Turkey were actually a transparent democracy and behaved like a member of NATO, it would have a transparent inquiry into how 13 people it claimed to be trying to “rescue” ended up killed in the course of the operation." - funny this statement comes from a man whoms state has problems with ICC's attempt to investigate war crimes committed by israel in palestinian territories, the irony. If you really allow this kind of biased opinion of a (Redacted) guy, you are nothing but a turkophobic ideologist. 2A00:20:302F:E6E5:0:48:9F9D:BC01 (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: I appreciate that you are new to this platform, but you need to learn a few basics. You must not insult anyone at all - other editors, or identifiable living people. Our WP:BLP and WP:NPA policies explain this, I'd encourage you to read them thoroughly. I have redacted your comments about the author of this piece.

People who enforce our policies, which is all I have sought to do here, are not necessarily turkophobic. I have been to Turkey a couple of times - once to Istanbul to attend the marriage of a Turkish friend, and once as a student to study the ophiolite complex in the south west of the country - but I know very little about, and have no interest in, its politics. The only reason I have come to this talk page is to try to ensure that it retains a civil, constructive editing environment. I'm therefore warning you that you must not comment on other editors here: keep your commentary focused on the content of the article and the sources. (It's OK to say that you feel that a source is biased by the way - just don't apply MOS:LABELs to its author.)

With regard to the source, and with apologies for repeating myself: I see no policy-based reason why it can't be used (WP:BIASEDSOURCE is worth reading), but I have already said that I don't think that there's much we could use it for, since it is mostly opinion rather than factual reporting. I don't have a view on Des Vallee's proposal to quote the author directly, because they haven't indicated where in the article they would like to insert it, so I don't really know how relevant it would be. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

PKK claim victory by killing hostages?

What kind of victory they claiming? Victory, their shelters destroyed? Or is it the militants who died and assasinated hostages is that victory? Totally ridiculous and biased editorial. I don't understand what kind of weed you guys using but i want the same one to flyCengizsogutlu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu The PKK have claimed they have pushed out Turkish forces out of the Gare which certain Turkish sources seem to confirm. It seems that Turkey might have withdrawn. It is of course difficult to tell within the grand scheme of things, as how fuzzy some of the sources are. Des Vallee (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thats not true what i said recently in unfinished war everyone exaggerates and does not admit defeat or reality. I'm not a no-brainer nationalist. Turkish soldiers captured 2 militants, filled dead hostages into helicopter to deliver the bodies to their families. Finally, 4 militants who wanted to RUN off with a paramotor were nutralized. See source = (Redacted)

You haven't read the article yet i see, how do you discuss it i mean what you do is now without watching movie write comments about the movie. Also as someone who knows the region and this kind of terrorist warfare around Iraq, Turkish Army has several dozens Bases in N. Iraq. The closest one is Bamarni Air Base I recommend you to examine this region and Turkish bases before editing war articles.. We can complain about so called personal attacks, but if someone who has no knowledge of a topic they still don't say anything about it. Btw i wish the laws of physics would allow to destroy the mountain bunkers with a 5 kg drone bomb :D..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the article says

"Per PKK:

13 Turkish military hostages killed by Turkish bombing[11]"

However the latest statement of the PKK, which can be found here, claims the hostages were killed by Chemical Weapons and later shot. The turkish autopsy reported that except one for who was shot in the shoulder, all the hostages were shot in the head. So both the PKK and the Turkish Goverment are in line with the statement that the hostages were shot. Futhermore the father (Şehmus Kaya,a Kurd from Mardin), of one of the deceased hostages confirmed to a turkish newspaper that he saw the shot wound on the head of his deceased son.I quote the PKK statement "Probably everyone in this camp was shot after being killed by chemical gas.". Turkey is part of the Chemical Weapons Convention and has no known stockpile of chemical weapons per Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. So the most likely situation in this cases is that the PKK was surrounded and in desperation shot the hostages as reported earlier, this was also confirmed by the two captured PKK fighters. The PKK also confirmed that two of their fighters were captured, which was reported days ago by the turkish army So far the only thing the Turkish and PKK report don't match is the use of chemical weapon, and who shot the hostages. PKK doesn't mention explicit who shot the hostages, Also It's very unlikely that the Turkish Army shot the hostages whom they wanted to rescue after several days of fightings. The statement given the sources seems to be not correct. I also would object the claim of "Victory" for both sides. The PKK didn't manage to hold control of the cave and all its fighter in the cave died, and the Turkish army entered the cave but only managed to retreat with dead hostages. So a failure of both sides. Ödegay31 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't use reasoning like that (Turkey doesn't stockpile chemical weapons therefore...). We summarise reliable sources, nothing more. Please be specific about what you want to add to or change in the article, and what source you base it on. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, "Per PKK: Hostages gassed and shot dead." would be more correct now... Ödegay31 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ödegay31, I think I see what you're saying - you're suggesting that the Infobox under 'casualties and losses' be changed to reflect the assertion in this link that "Probably everyone in this camp was shot after being killed by chemical gas", is that correct? This statement is from the HPG - is that synonymous with the PKK? Does anyone object to that change? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

They're the military wing of the PKK, also called People's Defence Forces. Ödegay31 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would stress out the contradiction like: "first claimed hostages killed by airstrike, now claim they died as a result of an (unproven) gas-attack". 2A00:20:302F:E6E5:0:48:9F9D:BC01 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Stressing the contradiction would be WP:EDITORIALIZING, and would require WP:SYNTH, neither of which is permitted - we don't write like that, we aim to present facts neutrally. I don't see any reason, however, why the text in the article should not say something along the lines of "An HPG spokesperson stated on <<whatever date it was>> that the Turkish captives had been killed during the fighting in the camp, and later on <<date of the second one>> they stated that they had died in a chemical weapon attack on the camp and had been shot afterwards." That would need to go somewhere in the body of the article with appropriate references. The infobox should probably be changed just to say 'killed during the Turkish attack', not being more specific than that since the sources are contradictory. Would all parties be satisfied with that? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Greetings. 2A00:20:302F:E6E5:0:48:9F9D:BC01 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected

Since the edit-warring isn't stopping despite the blocking of various socks and other disruptive accounts, I have fully protected the article for 3 days. Please use this time to discuss the issues here. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PKK forces released a detailed statement on the operation.([2]) The most useful things from this statement are:

• PKK now claims that the TAF assaulted the cave prison camp with gas, then executed the captives with bullets to the head.(rather than them being killed in airstrikes) So it is now not disputed the manner that the captives were killed, just by whom.
• PKK claims at least 37 TAF were KIA, and dozens more were injured. PKK claims 15 PKK were KIA, and 2 were captured by TAF. (number captured aligns with TAF claim)

-Thespündragon 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! First they literally claimed the hostages died during the airstrike, now knowing the autopsy-report is out they try to suggest turkish forces killed the hostages AFTER using gas?! This is so pathetic, who believes these people anymore? Look, they first wrote: "The bombardment, which lasted for three days, and the fierce battles inside and outside the camp resulted in the death of some of the MIT members, soldiers and policemen we had captured. That no one would survive such a fierce attack was clear to anyone with basic military knowledge[...]" ([3]) - now they row back and claim "Probably everyone in this camp was shot after being killed by chemical gas. These are the first information we gathered." ([4]). ANF-news prove again their severe lack of reliability - additionally, even they acknowledge that 2 pkk-fighters were captured (just as the turkish state announces) - the primary source turkey refered to when stating pkk killed the 13 hostages were these two pkk-fighters. It is said, that they confessed that the pkk killed the hostages at the beginning of the operation. This must be stressed out..

Claims

Added per consensus "On 14th February HPG claimed the 13 Turkish military hostages were killed by Turkish bombing, on 17th February the HPG claimed that the Hostages got shot and gassed." If you revert or remove it give the reasons here please! Ödegay31 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also added statements of relatives of the hostages. Ödegay31 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Died versus executed

Why do some authors keep replacing "executed" with "died"? Why do they - apparently - blindly accept PKK's point of view? The moment you say "died" you are one-sided. 77.247.85.102 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Already mentioned below infobox. Now it is back on sided, the last revert is most neutral see WP:NPOV. Why we should add here only turkish POV but not PKK POV? Shadow4dark (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the PKK POV is that the hostages most likely got killed by Chemical Gas and later shot. Ödegay31 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We should renove that? Already mentioned below infobox. Only "Both sides claim victory" should stay. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Both PKK POV and the Turkish Army POV is that the hostages got executed, the difference is the accusation of by whom and by which method they were killed. Turkish Army says it's the PKK, PKK says it's the Turkish Army. Ödegay31 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok you need renove the source, it says from turkish POV pkk killed them.Shadow4dark (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the PKK Says it was the Turkish Army who shot them after gassing them. "Chemical weapons used in Siyanê prison camp". ANF. 17 February 2021. Ödegay31 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "execute" isn't anywhere in that source. Maybe I missed it, but I'm not sure there is any source that says the PKK accuses the Turkish Army of executing (as opposed to killing) the hostages. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who insisted on it, it was an edit war between Des Valles and Cengizsogutlu. "Died" would be also okay. I also object the "Victory" of both sides. Since neither the Turkish Army could rescue the Hostages, nor did the PKK manage to hold the cave but that would be my POV I guess :/. Ödegay31 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Both of them are now blocked from this page.Shadow4dark (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How about changing it to: |result = 13 hostages killed? I think, per the sources, that is the most significant, and only significant, result of this operation, and the disputed details (who, how, etc.) should be left for the article not the infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that is best and NPOV. Also below infobox it is already mentioned that they are "executed" Shadow4dark (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Killed is a better word than died because it's more accurate. Executed shouldn't be used, because that usually means capital punishment. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the newest PKK statement on 23th February states "It is understood that people who lost their lives inside under such gas were executed by bullets fired into their heads.". The statements earlier was "propably"

->https://www.rudaw.net/turkish/kurdistan/170220217 Ödegay31 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The infobox currently implies that the US has said that the PKK executed the hostages, but the linked source only says that they have found the PKK responsible. The US and Turkey reactions should be separated. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Founding them responsible for the death of the captives affirms the turkish pov, thus implying that pkk executed them. It is important to stress out the affirmation of the US - many days the pkk claimed the hostages were killed by an airstrike, only to revise it few days later to state they were killed by gas AND then got shot later on: This has damaged their reliabilty. 95.89.63.5 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The US only confirmed the pkk responsibility, they took the people hostage and so are responsible for their deaths however that happened. Saying the US is implying anything from that is synth. That might be what the US is implying, but it is not what they said. I'm not making any comment on the PKK statements, which stand separately. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

PKK confessions

Why are the confessions of two PKK fighters not considered reliable source here? I mean, is this platform about summarizing all avaible sources, or filtering sources that contradict the western point of view (e.g. pkk are "freedom fighters", turkey bad)? Pathetic. 95.89.63.5 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is wikipedia - mostly run by leftist wannabe authors often with no friends other than online friends. Of course they will silence every source damaging the reputation of the pkk terrorist group. Many of them supporting pkk are either from canada, netherland, norway or us-states with democrates running it. Its nothing new. If your comments dont fit their agenda, they ban you. 2A00:20:3023:DDD2:0:59:838F:3301 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the organisation that's reporting which has to be reliable, rather than the arrestees. The West don't support the PKK; some Western countries designate them a terrorist group. Jim Michael (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jim, if trt is not allowed as a source, why is anf-news - the main propaganda channel of the pkk - allowed? 2A00:20:3032:BEAB:0:5D:D7D9:3201 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge

This page is part of this page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Operation_Claw-Eagle_2 and should be merged. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree to that. The victims are unsourced, maybe an important info for some, but unsourced. A redirect to Claw Eagle 2 would do as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

OR?

Shadow4dark, may you care to explain yourself? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes these motives in infobox is pure OR. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Shadow4dark, the massacre was committed by the PKK, which advocates for Kurdish separatism in Turkey. It would be way better if you were patient, and had waited for me to finish my work here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That the massacre was committed by the PKK is very dubious. The PKK offered to let them free if only anyone would come pick them multiple times.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, PKK's involvement have been confirmed not only by Turkey, but also the United States and third-party media outlets. Turkey's statement might be perceived as propaganda, but there is a third-party confirmation. For your second statement, I don't how okay it is to justify execution of civilians by a terrorist organisation, though I find it considerably worrying. Reading guidelines about editing sensitive topics might be helpful, and please avoid doing that in the future as such actions can result in a topic ban. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

[5], MOS:ALLEGED. As I said, third-party confirmation exists. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ALLEGED refers to anyone who is under prosecution or accused of something. As for now there is no one sentenced nor on trial for the massacre. No mention of third party sources. So there is a doubt. User:Solavirum One, two more edits like this and I report you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, no? people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial is just an example given for the guideline. You can also doubt anything you want, you have the liberty to do so. But Wikipedia is not a place for user POV. The article has enough third-party references confirming it, like Al-Monitor, Arab Weekly, Human Rights Association. You're really trying my patience with this POV remarks, but I will take a stand and yet again AGF, as you might've not read the sources I've listed in the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, also, about you reporting me. Go ahead, as that'll be a WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of making disruptive edits, you could just head over here to achieve a consensus. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, given the press freedom in Turkey, what do you expect? There are enough voices who say otherwise.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The press freedom isn't related to this issue though. I've provided third-party and/or independent sources. If you object furthermore, I can apply for third opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I asked for a 3O, as it seems that we've reached an impasse. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The victims included six civilians, two police officers, and five military personnel,[18] Any more info on those six civilians? Also the number "six" does not seem coming from the provided source. Of note according to this source: A military expert, who requested anonymity, said that those captured were automatically considered as civilians in Turkish military procedures. This other source says No less than 13 intelligence and police personnel, including two intelligence directors, were killed. While technically everyone can be called a citizen as long as he is citizen of a state,... Hemşinli çocuk 09:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an official listing. Though I found it undue to cover every single victim one by one. The other sources refer to premature reports. There is really no strong evidence confirming 13 soldiers getting killed. Even one of the victims was an Iraqi Kurdish civilian, making the claim even more untrue. Though I have covered the claim of intelligence service operatives being among the dead. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How can the PKK even be blamed of an attack? It is cristal clear that Turkish armed forces attacked. That this was PKK attack is Turkish POV in its perfection.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And to MOS:alleged, there is no mention of third party sources in the whole section MOS:alleged. But it mentions that the source of the accusation must be clear, and the source are "TURKISH" reports. Most of the WP:RS used here like NYT, Bloomberg etc refer to Turkish reports. Anadolu Daily Sabah are etc. not WP:RS for controversial claims.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, WP:NOTAFORUM. The WP:RS used here date back to pre-autopsy reports, and there are third-party confirmation of the execution, including one from a human rights organisation that has ties to the Kurdish movements and is being prosecuted by the government. I've provided several sources actually, I don't know what's enough for you. I'd say, wait for 3O. Also, removing Bloomberg report as Turkish POV is disruptive editing, refer to here before making such controversial edits; I'm doing by best to AGF and tolerate your behaviour, but you have to chill out a little. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not removed the source just the phrase which was sourced with it. Bloomberg states that Turkey says = Turkish POV. The phrase in the lead is “It was the deadliest attack by PKK in recent years“ for an event in which Turkey refused to negotiate and engaged in armed conflict by itself.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, no. Bloomberg doesn't refer to the attack being deadliest as a statement by the Turkish government. The phrase is: The reported execution would mark the deadliest attack by the Kurdish separatist group in recent years. You say, for an event in which Turkey refused to negotiate and engaged in armed conflict by itself, this statement is so wrong. You're literally blaming Turkey for a terrorist group executing 13 unarmed people, and abruptly justifying the action. Launching a search and rescue might've risked their lives, but it is crystal clear that PKK had the consciousness of ordering the execution and it wasn't forced to slay them. I might have to report you for this, your comment is simply wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there more detail on the autopsy report? For example, whatever those shot were the cause of their death? Was there independent autopsy to corroborate? It's a highly politicized subject, with abundant war rhetoric being used (Whichever hole they enter, we will find them there and we will bump them off and Gara was an important, troubled area and it fell, God willing; the job was done [6]), and this incident was used by Turkey to extend its operations. It is not sufficiently covered in the article that Turkey literally put pressure on foreign administrations for support (ex: Turkish President says the US statement condemning the killings if PKK’s responsibility is confirmed, shows Washington supports the Kurdish armed group [7]). Also, I wouldn't mind if more info is provided about those 6 civilians, because it makes a difference. Military hostages (or other political symbols) are dealt with differently than civilian hostages, first one is more or less a political matter, unlike the second. Hemşinli çocuk 18:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Solavirum "Would" doesn't mean was. And an "independent" (not one of the Turkish Government) autopsy report I'd also like to see.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Refusal of request for Third Opinion. Dear fellow editors; with apologies, I have removed this good-faith request because 3O is not used when, as here, more than two editors are involved. You might try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.