Talk:Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008)

message: *Bombing of Iraq (December 1998)
*Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (1996)
*War in Afghanistan (2001–present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name similarities 

message: So, did this end in December 2007? If not, we should move it to "(2007–2008)"... —Nightstallion 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: last reported attack occurred on December 26, see timeline. I edited the infobox --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing

message: You can't prove that it's a school. Give me just a little proof that it's a school. I think that these are just ulterior motives to make the Turkish Forces look bad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overld (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Photographer claims that, he was there. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author says so, it may be really... But I think it's not appropriate to put it as the main image of the article, unless it is proven. Tens of journalists visited northen Iraq, but any of them claimed such destruction.--78.180.41.211 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "A civilian clearing debris from what is claimed to be a school destroyed in the December 2007 bombings"? That would meet WP:V, since we cannot in fact verify from a reliable source that this rubble comes from a bombed school. Sandstein (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Ruined School Picture

message: All info is now here. Shall I proceed?
--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scope of the current incursion is as the media reports, the amount of info would be too unwieldy to add completely to this article.  I don't see any reason why this article couldn't act as the parent article with a short summary, and leave the details to the new article. Joshdboz (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: if a mega battle occurs with casualties and wide media coverage I would support your point. However, now it's better here to have that info.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merging. —Nightstallion 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support merge. Also, if there's any substantial updates to this conflict please add something on the development to the Iraq war page, i.e wiki link, brief sentence, etc. Thanks Publicus 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If there is consensus for merge that is fine, but so far important information has been removed and the layout confuses the subject matter. Joshdboz (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think new title is confusing and the article should be renamed back. It is not about many operations. It is mostly about one specific operation. Of course, one could keep this article too as a short parent article, but the original article by Joshdboz should be restored.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have tried to integrate the article as best as possible, but there are still two generally distinct sections, the bombing campaign from mid-December to mid-February, and the ground offensive launched yesterday.  They can either remain in the same article, split it up with this as parent and ground offensive as separate, or create 2 new articles 2007-2008 Turkish airstrikes in northern Iraq and 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq.  Ideally, Turkey-PKK conflict would be improved to show the progression from Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari, to the winter bombing campaign, to the ground invasion.  I think that would be the logical way to proceed. Joshdboz (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It would be more logical to handle two separate operations in two separate articles and also have something more general about Turkey-PKK conflict.Biophys (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This article has a crazy style. First of all, nobody knows if any military personnel died during the operation, just like we haven’t gained a single trustful data about "hundreds of Kurdish losses" yet. The media isn't even sure about the numbers as "10,000 Turkish soldiers” is just the most accepted theory for now. Americans and local Kurdish authority claims that the Turkish soldiers who passed the Iraqi border are limited to “around hundred". Deliogul (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I think it makes much more sense to rename this article to apply specifically from Dec. to Feb., allow that to expand and cleanup, and have a separate article on what is or is not happening on the ground since yesterday. Joshdboz (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq]] merge 

message: Why list the casualties? This number will probably change rapidly. Besides, we are using a terrorist group's account as a source... Contralya (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties? 

message: This seems like a significant escalation over earlier events. -- Kendrick7talk 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion: Wait and see. Brutannica (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See? What exactly should I be looking for? Another 10,000 troops to cross the border? -- Kendrick7talk 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed above and there still is an article 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq.  I don't know why the front page still has this link. Joshdboz (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well I've resplit there. No point in risking WP:POVFORK issues until the matter is settled. -- Kendrick7talk 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't intended to be a POV fork, but more the result of a changing consensus on what should be done. Joshdboz (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article about "2008 Turkish incrusion" is going to be huge. This is a very important event. Therefore, it shoud have a separate article as suggested by Joshdboz.Biophys (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 invasion should have its own article 

message: Please leave (Turkish claim)! Those numbers weren't and cannot be independently confirmed--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: also, don't make me laugh with the number 700. The turkish military said 175 before, and 237 during Operation Sun. Do you know math? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The estimated 700 militants were killed by the aerial attacks between December and January, not the ground offensive which began in February. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: where's the source for that. That's a Turkish claim?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The article already states that it's an "estimate" by the Turkish Armed Forces satellite, UAV and jet fighter images. And where's the source that there were exactly "10,000" troops? Both the 10,000 (Turkish Army) and the 4,000 (PKK) figures are estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: not 700 but 175!  --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is from 25 December and says "200 targets were destroyed". The air bombardments continued until the end of January (30 January) and more than 300 targets were hit and an estimated 700 terrorists were killed in total. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you still do not have sources for that.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PKK casualties 

message: All the numbers are here:
http://www.tsk.mil.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_Basin_Aciklamalari/2008/BA_25.html
I added them and made the necessary corrections. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final report of the Turkish General Staff