This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed that it got changed from the adopted seal to a de-facto flag which shows the seal on a white background; I personally think that if we're going to use a de-facto flag, it's best to use the most common one (the yellow-red-green tricolour version). I'll boldly add this change myself, but I expect that not everyone will agree with me, so I'll start this talk section before making the change to avoid any edit warring & to can follow the WP:BRD process. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Vatan Partisi itself does not claim to be leftist. It claims to be Kemalist, the ideology of M. Kemal Ataturk. They are also not a part of Socialist International. Could someone please remove the leftist? It is also okay to remove Vatan Partisi comment altogether, as their latest election result is 0.23%. They are not representing any group in Turkish politics. 131.111.5.154 ( talk) 01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This article's flag salad has reached a bloated 45 entries, and now constitutes 58 percent of the text. Ridiculous, undue – and counterproductive for readers. As previously suggested, a prose summary of those reactions considered particularly trenchant or significant would be more helpful, and far more readable. – Sca ( talk) 15:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"60,000 people mostly Kurds have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment" which was changed to "According to The New York Times 60,000 Syrians have fled border towns."
Genuine mistake NPR source given does not state 60,000 people have fled. However i found a source to replace it. With the sources now being sufficient revert changes to: 60,000 people have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment. I had source stating the majority of people fleeing where Kurdish however i can not currently find the link.
https://www.apnews.com/8500277b239b4acab805e5e2bdb43938
Apnews: 3:55 p.m.
The U.N. refugee agency says tens of thousands of civilians in Syria are on the move to escape the fighting and seek safety amid a Turkish offensive into the area.
Thursday’s statement by UNHCR came a day after Turkish troops began a military operation against Kurdish fighters in Syria.
UNHCR called on parties to adhere to International Humanitarian Law, including providing access for aid agencies.
The agency said hundreds of thousands of civilians “in northern Syria are now in harm’s way. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must not be a target.”
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that more than 60,000 have fled their homes in northern Syria since Wednesday.
UNHCR said after eight years of conflict, Syria remains the largest refugee crisis in the world, with 5.6 million Syrians living as refugees.
3 different points in the town of Mardin Nusaybin mortar fell. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Nusaybin district of the city of Qamishli was thrown mortar by PKK terrorists. Thrown mortar hit a site in the district. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Mardin Governorate's statement on the incident, "Nusaybin as a result of mortars thrown from the Syrian border in our county, there are 2 civil martyrs, 24 injured."
Why was the section on Syrian Refugees removed? It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Goodposts has split off the entire reactions section to a separate article. While I'm not necessarily against this in principle, I really think this should have been discussed first, and also the total blanking of material from this page is not due as some abbreviated section is indeed very relevant. Thoughts, RfC or what?-- Calthinus ( talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel as though the Humanitarian Situation deserves it own section to covered, as Humanitarian Section decidated to the Humanitarian effect this is causing. 60,000 People have already fled so it is certainly important and many countries as the primary thing to look out for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Why however? The topic is directly related to the topic and effects the topic detrimentally and moreover Turkey claims that one of the primary reason for re-settlement is the displacement of Syrian Refugees. and 60,000 people are effected many which naturally are related to the SDF fighting force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The lede currently says:
The Turkish action was condemned by the European Union, the Arab League, Iran, Israel, Australia and the United Kingdom as an assault on the territory of a sovereign and Arab state and an irresponsible destabilizing action with "potentially terrible" humanitarian consequences.
According to the Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive article, the majority of countries or other entities that have declared a position on the matter have condemned or opposed the military offensive. However, according to the same article, a few others have not condemned or opposed it ("neutral" UN, NATO) or even have supported it (Turkey's allies Pakistan, Qatar). The position of the US too is rather murky (Pompeo's comments etc). The content in the lede should be modified to be more neutral and informing. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
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.
{{requested move/dated|2019 Invasion of northern Syria by Turkey}}
2019 Rojava offensive → 2019 Invasion of northern Syria by Turkey – Most readers can not do anything with the current title. Many do not know Rojava. The media speak of Syria. 109.195.21.130 ( talk) 00:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The most basic of every military conflict article is how many troops/soldiers are brought into the conflict by Turkey. No where to seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.79.197.171 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
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.
I've checked other wikipedias.
I know every wikipedia has own understanding of NPOV and there's no reason to do it here as well. However, I can't see an appropriate explanation why this title should be "Rojava". This is a controversial term and I wonder why some people strongly defend that term to death. This title can be invasion or military offensive etc. we can discuss it's an invasion or not due to the results. This is another rational discussion, but why insist on "Rojava". Please correct me if I'm wrong, as far as I know people who support "Syrian Kurdish Independence" use that term. Current title shakes many people's faith to believe English Wikipedia has NPOV. Of course I know admins do not allow to discuss the title of article but I just wanted to share my ideas with sorrow about title. Also, I hope that violation will be resolved. Best regards.-- Sabri76' talk 08:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment on content not users please. Also read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The majority of the 2,000 US military trainers and advisors working in Syria were sent home in early 2019. Following the framework of a gradual withdrawal, roughly 1,000 American soldiers remained in Syria by May 2019, with only The goal of keeping only 400 in place by the end of 2019. The Kurds of northern Syria were advised of American troop removals 2 years ago. On October 9th, due to the invasion of Syria by the Turkish Army, the Pentagon ordered 50 American trainers and advisors from the northern border of Syria for safety reasons. In October 12, 2019 American President D. Trump sent $50M in emergency funds to Syria to "protect persecuted ethnic and religious minorities and advance human rights." He reiterated his statement of, "the endless wars must end."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sends-dollar50-million-in-emergency-funds-to-syria/ar-AAIGYQn?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss&OCID=AMZNSBRA#page=2ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/world/middleeast/us-troops-syria-isis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/trump-syria-turkey-troop-withdrawal.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-50-us-troops-removed-from-northern-syria/ar-AAIvq12
The result of the move request was: move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. There was clear consensus to move the article, but it was split between the descriptive and operation titles. I went with the former, however, because arguments as to the one-sided nature of the latter were not addressed substantively enough (beyond noting that there are similar articles titled as operations — but there are also articles titled descriptively). Also, the descriptive title enjoyed more recent support, which could indicate a shift in the consensus. I should stress again that the consensus was split, but a decision had to be made El_C 15:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest reaching a consensus on the name of the article at the start of the operation, so that we do not have to move it over and over again. In line with the previous Turkish military operations in Syria ( Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch), i propose the following name for this article: Operation Peace Spring. Turkish president Erdogan used this exact name when launching the operation this afternoon. [1] I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks like both “Operation Peace Spring” and “2019 Rojava offensive” aren’t neutral enough names according to the discussion above. The most clear and neutral name I can think of would then be Turkish military operation in northern Syria. This name gives a clear picture of what this article is about. This name also avoids the discussion about the phrase ‘invasion’. In addition, Turkish most recent operation ( Operation Olive Branch), was named “Turkish military operation in Afrin” before it got moved to the current name. On top of that there is also an article named Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate, so this name would fit in that list. Finally, the word ‘east’ does not necessarily have to be included, since this operation will focus on a zone along the Syrian-Turkish border. @ Drmies, Nice4What, Goodposts, Thespündragon, Vanilla Wizard, Beshogur, A4516416, Starship.paint, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Slatersteven: I would like to hear from you guys and many more, also feel free to comment the name you think fits the best with some arguments. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
“Syria strongly condemns irresponsible statements and aggressive intentions of the Turkish regime and its amassing of the army at the Syrian border, which is a disgraceful breach of international law and UN resolutions that respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the country’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.. starship .paint ( talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: This requested move appears to be out of process, attention should be centralized at the "Name of the article" discussion where there is already a developing consensus. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 Rojava offensive →
Operation Peace Spring – Request a speedy move into this until the discussion above in the talk page is finished. Reason being is the article was called by this name with consensus, until somebody moved it to
2019 Rojava offensive without discussion and the page has since been move protected.
A4516416 (
talk)
06:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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.
Notifying previous participants:
Proposing 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria as previously suggested by ansh.666. starship .paint ( talk) 06:46, 10 October 2019 (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.
|
There are plenty of military operations on Wikipedia were the actual name supported by outside real-word sources are used (Doppolkopf, desert shield, Barbarossa). If we would give the same threat meant to other articles and call Hitler “German person 1889-1945 (number 2341)” or the bible “Christian holy book (1)” the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing. I might not the most knowledgeable on Wikipedia rules and guidelines but I do know that the guidelines literally tell us to ignore the rules in situations like this. In the case that you decide against that, I would propose using a name that is fully neutral. Not the words invasion or offensive. Any of the participants might change their story later on. If the current consensus that it is an invasion, wether it is a justified one or not, is the reason that the word invasion can be considered neutral than it wouldn’t be neutral anymore if that happens which I think might be a Wikipedia worthy but certainly isn’t the real definition of neutral. If the name(s) of SDF operations countering this operation are to decide the name of the article on this related but distinct operation as stated above then the article should be called something like operations in north-eastern Syria (followed by a date or some other distinguisher) because that would be fully neutral and include all operation of the (what was previously called an) invasion. In that case no one will go into the article thinking “a NATO member attacked them so they must be terrorists” or “Turkey attacks so they are evil” but instead get the whole story with all its nuances at once. If neither of these is a satisfactory solution to you I would recommend finding a reliable outside source and presenting the name it uses so a name with a connection to the real world can be used instead of one created on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. Dorromikhal ( talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing, however Hitler and the Bible are proper nouns that are universally known, the codename for an operation launched by a specific state is not universal and the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. —comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 12:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
My autocorrect split the word treatment into threat meant for some reason. It should say treatment. Dorromikhal ( talk) 11:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Than I would propose calling the article something like “Operation in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” or “Actions in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” as it would include operation launched any non-Turkish parties that are or might get involved and it is neutral more so than Turkish invasion/offensive of/in north-eastern Syria. Dorromikhal ( talk) 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I support "2019 Turkish invasion of Northwest Syria" people will remember the conflict here being called this and "Rojava" means "Western Kurdistan" IE: Syrian Kurdistan yet there is a mass amount of non-kurdish areas being invaded and moreover if people where to look up this conflict it is unlikely they type "2019 Rojava Offensive."
But what about operations instead of invasion? Than the article could include follow up operations and such which might not strictly be considered part of the invasion. If those would get their own article with an equally vague name then it might get difficult to navigate for people who haven’t spend hours discussing neutral names on a Wikipedia talk page. Dorromikhal ( talk) 12:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Turkish president emphasised it will be a restricted operation by creating a 30 km-deep (20 miles) safe zone in Northern Syria. "offensive" or "invasion" titles are not in accordance with WP:NPOV. This operation is obviously like Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch. There's no difference. The title should be "Operation Peace Spring" and opposition side has to prove that why it has to be changed.-- Sabri76' talk 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
El C has move-protected the article, which was the right thing to do; that it was The Wrong Version is just part and parcel of the process whereby an admin stays out of content matters. But I think anyone who's ever closed an RfC can look over this discussion to conclude that the current title ("Rojava offensive"), the former title ("Peace Spring" or whatever), and the intermediate title ("anything with invasion") are to be discredited for POV reasons, and that variants of "2019 offensive by Turks in Northern Syria" or something like that are supported by a preponderance of editors--with arguments. If this doesn't get solved quickly, I'll post on WP:AN or maybe the RfC talk page to have someone with experience look at this and make the call. We can NOT have POV article names in such current matters. Drmies ( talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Per convention: only "reactions" from those directly involved. Thank you. A4516416, please be careful with what you call "vandalism". Drmies ( talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So what's the consensus? Since countries like Finland and Australia have been added, why have Belgium, Sweden and the reaction of other European countries not been re-added? -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
it's not POV to say 'invasion' - or should we then change "US invasion of iraq"? Vhstef ( talk) 01:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added invasion to the intro. Wikipedia is banned in Turkey so who cares about appeasement! User178198273998166172 ( talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm noticing that @ A4516416: has been repeatedly removing, moving, and rewriting this particular sentence:
According to a spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the operation is intended to " correct the demographics" of northern Syria. [1] [2]
References
At least one of us has to follow WP:BRD if anything's going to get done, and I feel like if I don't take it to talk, nobody will, so I'm making it into a thread myself. Vanilla Wizard 💙 07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanilla Wizard and A4516416: Both of you have violated WP:1RR ( Vanilla Wizard 1, Vanilla Wizard 2, Vanilla Wizard 3, Vanilla Wizard 4, A4516416 1, A4516416 2, A4516416 3, A4516416 4, and a few more each for the "officially called" and page move reverts). This is not even about BRD. No more reverts before a consensus is reached on this, please. Note that 1RR violations automatically warrant blocks. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
whether involving the same or different material. You've each broken 1RR multiple times. Even without the 1RR notice, you've each broken 3RR. This is independent of any other policy reason for making an edit, such as BRD or POV, with the only exceptions given here. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, per the wording at 3RR. However, I would suggest taking a step back from this article and focus your attention elsewhere for now or at least take the time to calm down. It's a controversial topic, stay cool. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Rojava" is not a real place and is not recognized as such by any nation, even its official name is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and it is in itself an unrecognized entity. Please rename the article to "2019 Turkish-Syrian Kurdish offensive" or something like this that actually follows reality. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
None of these media outlets mentions the word "rojava" in these stories. They simply refer to the area by the facts, that is Kurdish-controlled areas, SDF-controlled areas, Kurdish forces, etc. Any serious attempt at fixing the credibility of these articles? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We are not a live news feed, so can we not have up to the minute updates everything a new claim is made. Causalities, gains and loses ect can be left out until we know the truth. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And another example of why this is a bad idea [ [18]]. If we cannot know who and what these places are (or even if they exist) this is all wasting our readers time. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its a war, do we really need every town that is shelled, and a list of each engagements casualties, surely daily totals are enoug>? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, a captured HUMVEE, this is worthy of inclusion? Its hard to not start getting sarky here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Right. Eventually we need to get rid of the daily reports and summarize them into sections. Lightspecs ( talk) 10:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it biased to mention Turkish civilians killed along with their ages when God knows how many Kurdish and Syrian civilians have died under indiscriminate Turkish shelling and aerial bombing. It is a fact many more have died, and plenty of children too. Is this particular editor trying to gain sympathy for Turkey? Let's keep it objective and not mention the ages of those killed. I have nothing aganist using Turkish government sponsored media, but let's not be biased for one side please and give unnecessary details. User178198273998166172 ( talk) 16:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree one of the editor is not letting his person bias get in the way of truth. (I am personally biased to the SDF.) I had to change "109 Terrorists" to "109 SDF fighters." However i find it unnecessary the inclusion of personal details and there is a clear bias when not addressing Turkish bombing which lead to the killings of 5 people. Also i had an entire section completely deleted on Syrian Refugees with no prior reason as to why I assume it is just someone who does not like the information given. It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people, it should obviously be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
So are we in general agreement to remove the lengthy section of individuals killed in the bombardment and replace it with a more simplified less expansive section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Al-Mushrifah cannot be in the war zone, so either there is another (I can find no reference to it) or the claim is a lie. This raises doubts as to the veracity of any claims to have captured anywhere, and such references should be removed. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I also saw this and it made no sense as it is firmly in the control of the Assad Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Rojava offensive has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1 more Turkish soldier has been killed in the operation. So the death per Turkey should be chagned from 1 to 2. Source: https://www.ntv.com.tr/amp/turkiye/baris-pinari-harekatinda-1-asker-sehit,Gbf6_KscwUy_Dc6D1cWAeg 31.21.68.15 ( talk) 14:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the neutrality of this article is dubious it does indeed state 2. However the bias seems irrelevant in this case as Turkey does not benefit from reporting this.
"Number of martyrs rose to 2 in Peace Spring Operation
The news of the martyr came on the third day of the Peace Spring Operation. Ministry of Defense announced that a soldier was martyred. Thus, the number of soldiers killed in the operation rose to 2. 2 soldiers were killed and 3 soldiers were wounded in Azez, west of Euphrates."
I Understand the majority of people here can not read Turkish however google translate is very easy to use. Also this is clearly biased in favor of Turkish State Media however i have no doubt that this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Rojava#/media/File:De_facto_cantons_of_Rojava.png
OK, we now have a source [21]. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (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.
@ Admins, please see the Talk page above. Despite reaching some consensus in the discussion, there has been no action on the name change since the first "unexplained move" was done without any discussion. This current scandalous name "2019 Rojava offensive" is on the first page and represents a stab in Wikipedia's credibility, since no one else (including other wikis) uses this fake name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Or ANYBODY else. Can you do this change for me? Source says 342 killed [22]. Some user changed it to killed wounded or captured thinking source claimed the word NEUTRALIZED. I asked him to undo but he is either ignoring or is just AFK User talk:WoofersSCW. KasimMejia ( talk) 14:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If you people honestly believe in Turkish casualty estimates for their enemies, who they dismiss as 'terrorists', I think that is beyond stupid. This page could be worse if Wikipedia were not banned in Turkey, yet there are still plently of Turks it seems writing biased information. How would Turkey know how many SDF fighters have died??? Are they counting the bodies? No, Turkey bombs a city and then says "We killed 2503 TERRORISTS!". It is laughable and not worthy of being on this page. I trust and most editors here trust SDF and SOHR estimates rather than Turkish ones. User178198273998166172 ( talk) 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need a Wikipedia consensus whether to include this or not? There were 7 Turkish civilians killed yesterday with 5 of them being children, yet some user has deliberately removed the fact that they are children [23] although there are sources mentioning it. Can someone reinclude it? I don't want to violate 1RR, even though the user who did the revert has. KasimMejia ( talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
In my overall opinion it is useless information in other articles on the Syrian civil war it does not tell the age even if the information is available. It is not as if the SDF intended for civilians to be hurt. The only information that tells is that the conflict is brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Regarding this, [24] I think you're taking it a bit too far, the main three sources in this article should be, per Turkey, per SDF and per SOHR. You don't need to type the name of every different Turkish website, that just makes it confusing. You are welcome to say according to Turkey. KasimMejia ( talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If source A says 10 and source B says "Another town was captured" that does not mean 11 town were captured. We have no way of knowing if the first source took the "other town" into account or not. As we do not know when that town was captured. We know when the official announcement was made, but that is not the same as when it occurred. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ KasimMejia: - get over it. I trust Slatersteven and I’m absolutely confident he is acting in good faith. starship .paint ( talk) 23:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong. This wasn't settled. @ EkoGraf: - why did you restore the 10 October source in an attempt to add casualties to a 12 October source? [32] How do you know that the 1 person isn't already counted in the 28 people?? starship .paint ( talk) 14:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed that it got changed from the adopted seal to a de-facto flag which shows the seal on a white background; I personally think that if we're going to use a de-facto flag, it's best to use the most common one (the yellow-red-green tricolour version). I'll boldly add this change myself, but I expect that not everyone will agree with me, so I'll start this talk section before making the change to avoid any edit warring & to can follow the WP:BRD process. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Vatan Partisi itself does not claim to be leftist. It claims to be Kemalist, the ideology of M. Kemal Ataturk. They are also not a part of Socialist International. Could someone please remove the leftist? It is also okay to remove Vatan Partisi comment altogether, as their latest election result is 0.23%. They are not representing any group in Turkish politics. 131.111.5.154 ( talk) 01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This article's flag salad has reached a bloated 45 entries, and now constitutes 58 percent of the text. Ridiculous, undue – and counterproductive for readers. As previously suggested, a prose summary of those reactions considered particularly trenchant or significant would be more helpful, and far more readable. – Sca ( talk) 15:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"60,000 people mostly Kurds have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment" which was changed to "According to The New York Times 60,000 Syrians have fled border towns."
Genuine mistake NPR source given does not state 60,000 people have fled. However i found a source to replace it. With the sources now being sufficient revert changes to: 60,000 people have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment. I had source stating the majority of people fleeing where Kurdish however i can not currently find the link.
https://www.apnews.com/8500277b239b4acab805e5e2bdb43938
Apnews: 3:55 p.m.
The U.N. refugee agency says tens of thousands of civilians in Syria are on the move to escape the fighting and seek safety amid a Turkish offensive into the area.
Thursday’s statement by UNHCR came a day after Turkish troops began a military operation against Kurdish fighters in Syria.
UNHCR called on parties to adhere to International Humanitarian Law, including providing access for aid agencies.
The agency said hundreds of thousands of civilians “in northern Syria are now in harm’s way. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must not be a target.”
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that more than 60,000 have fled their homes in northern Syria since Wednesday.
UNHCR said after eight years of conflict, Syria remains the largest refugee crisis in the world, with 5.6 million Syrians living as refugees.
3 different points in the town of Mardin Nusaybin mortar fell. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Nusaybin district of the city of Qamishli was thrown mortar by PKK terrorists. Thrown mortar hit a site in the district. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Mardin Governorate's statement on the incident, "Nusaybin as a result of mortars thrown from the Syrian border in our county, there are 2 civil martyrs, 24 injured."
Why was the section on Syrian Refugees removed? It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Goodposts has split off the entire reactions section to a separate article. While I'm not necessarily against this in principle, I really think this should have been discussed first, and also the total blanking of material from this page is not due as some abbreviated section is indeed very relevant. Thoughts, RfC or what?-- Calthinus ( talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel as though the Humanitarian Situation deserves it own section to covered, as Humanitarian Section decidated to the Humanitarian effect this is causing. 60,000 People have already fled so it is certainly important and many countries as the primary thing to look out for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Why however? The topic is directly related to the topic and effects the topic detrimentally and moreover Turkey claims that one of the primary reason for re-settlement is the displacement of Syrian Refugees. and 60,000 people are effected many which naturally are related to the SDF fighting force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The lede currently says:
The Turkish action was condemned by the European Union, the Arab League, Iran, Israel, Australia and the United Kingdom as an assault on the territory of a sovereign and Arab state and an irresponsible destabilizing action with "potentially terrible" humanitarian consequences.
According to the Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive article, the majority of countries or other entities that have declared a position on the matter have condemned or opposed the military offensive. However, according to the same article, a few others have not condemned or opposed it ("neutral" UN, NATO) or even have supported it (Turkey's allies Pakistan, Qatar). The position of the US too is rather murky (Pompeo's comments etc). The content in the lede should be modified to be more neutral and informing. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
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.
{{requested move/dated|2019 Invasion of northern Syria by Turkey}}
2019 Rojava offensive → 2019 Invasion of northern Syria by Turkey – Most readers can not do anything with the current title. Many do not know Rojava. The media speak of Syria. 109.195.21.130 ( talk) 00:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The most basic of every military conflict article is how many troops/soldiers are brought into the conflict by Turkey. No where to seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.79.197.171 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
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.
I've checked other wikipedias.
I know every wikipedia has own understanding of NPOV and there's no reason to do it here as well. However, I can't see an appropriate explanation why this title should be "Rojava". This is a controversial term and I wonder why some people strongly defend that term to death. This title can be invasion or military offensive etc. we can discuss it's an invasion or not due to the results. This is another rational discussion, but why insist on "Rojava". Please correct me if I'm wrong, as far as I know people who support "Syrian Kurdish Independence" use that term. Current title shakes many people's faith to believe English Wikipedia has NPOV. Of course I know admins do not allow to discuss the title of article but I just wanted to share my ideas with sorrow about title. Also, I hope that violation will be resolved. Best regards.-- Sabri76' talk 08:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment on content not users please. Also read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The majority of the 2,000 US military trainers and advisors working in Syria were sent home in early 2019. Following the framework of a gradual withdrawal, roughly 1,000 American soldiers remained in Syria by May 2019, with only The goal of keeping only 400 in place by the end of 2019. The Kurds of northern Syria were advised of American troop removals 2 years ago. On October 9th, due to the invasion of Syria by the Turkish Army, the Pentagon ordered 50 American trainers and advisors from the northern border of Syria for safety reasons. In October 12, 2019 American President D. Trump sent $50M in emergency funds to Syria to "protect persecuted ethnic and religious minorities and advance human rights." He reiterated his statement of, "the endless wars must end."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sends-dollar50-million-in-emergency-funds-to-syria/ar-AAIGYQn?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss&OCID=AMZNSBRA#page=2ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/world/middleeast/us-troops-syria-isis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/trump-syria-turkey-troop-withdrawal.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-50-us-troops-removed-from-northern-syria/ar-AAIvq12
The result of the move request was: move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. There was clear consensus to move the article, but it was split between the descriptive and operation titles. I went with the former, however, because arguments as to the one-sided nature of the latter were not addressed substantively enough (beyond noting that there are similar articles titled as operations — but there are also articles titled descriptively). Also, the descriptive title enjoyed more recent support, which could indicate a shift in the consensus. I should stress again that the consensus was split, but a decision had to be made El_C 15:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest reaching a consensus on the name of the article at the start of the operation, so that we do not have to move it over and over again. In line with the previous Turkish military operations in Syria ( Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch), i propose the following name for this article: Operation Peace Spring. Turkish president Erdogan used this exact name when launching the operation this afternoon. [1] I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks like both “Operation Peace Spring” and “2019 Rojava offensive” aren’t neutral enough names according to the discussion above. The most clear and neutral name I can think of would then be Turkish military operation in northern Syria. This name gives a clear picture of what this article is about. This name also avoids the discussion about the phrase ‘invasion’. In addition, Turkish most recent operation ( Operation Olive Branch), was named “Turkish military operation in Afrin” before it got moved to the current name. On top of that there is also an article named Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate, so this name would fit in that list. Finally, the word ‘east’ does not necessarily have to be included, since this operation will focus on a zone along the Syrian-Turkish border. @ Drmies, Nice4What, Goodposts, Thespündragon, Vanilla Wizard, Beshogur, A4516416, Starship.paint, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Slatersteven: I would like to hear from you guys and many more, also feel free to comment the name you think fits the best with some arguments. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
“Syria strongly condemns irresponsible statements and aggressive intentions of the Turkish regime and its amassing of the army at the Syrian border, which is a disgraceful breach of international law and UN resolutions that respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the country’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.. starship .paint ( talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: This requested move appears to be out of process, attention should be centralized at the "Name of the article" discussion where there is already a developing consensus. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 Rojava offensive →
Operation Peace Spring – Request a speedy move into this until the discussion above in the talk page is finished. Reason being is the article was called by this name with consensus, until somebody moved it to
2019 Rojava offensive without discussion and the page has since been move protected.
A4516416 (
talk)
06:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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.
Notifying previous participants:
Proposing 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria as previously suggested by ansh.666. starship .paint ( talk) 06:46, 10 October 2019 (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.
|
There are plenty of military operations on Wikipedia were the actual name supported by outside real-word sources are used (Doppolkopf, desert shield, Barbarossa). If we would give the same threat meant to other articles and call Hitler “German person 1889-1945 (number 2341)” or the bible “Christian holy book (1)” the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing. I might not the most knowledgeable on Wikipedia rules and guidelines but I do know that the guidelines literally tell us to ignore the rules in situations like this. In the case that you decide against that, I would propose using a name that is fully neutral. Not the words invasion or offensive. Any of the participants might change their story later on. If the current consensus that it is an invasion, wether it is a justified one or not, is the reason that the word invasion can be considered neutral than it wouldn’t be neutral anymore if that happens which I think might be a Wikipedia worthy but certainly isn’t the real definition of neutral. If the name(s) of SDF operations countering this operation are to decide the name of the article on this related but distinct operation as stated above then the article should be called something like operations in north-eastern Syria (followed by a date or some other distinguisher) because that would be fully neutral and include all operation of the (what was previously called an) invasion. In that case no one will go into the article thinking “a NATO member attacked them so they must be terrorists” or “Turkey attacks so they are evil” but instead get the whole story with all its nuances at once. If neither of these is a satisfactory solution to you I would recommend finding a reliable outside source and presenting the name it uses so a name with a connection to the real world can be used instead of one created on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. Dorromikhal ( talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing, however Hitler and the Bible are proper nouns that are universally known, the codename for an operation launched by a specific state is not universal and the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. —comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 12:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
My autocorrect split the word treatment into threat meant for some reason. It should say treatment. Dorromikhal ( talk) 11:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Than I would propose calling the article something like “Operation in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” or “Actions in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” as it would include operation launched any non-Turkish parties that are or might get involved and it is neutral more so than Turkish invasion/offensive of/in north-eastern Syria. Dorromikhal ( talk) 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I support "2019 Turkish invasion of Northwest Syria" people will remember the conflict here being called this and "Rojava" means "Western Kurdistan" IE: Syrian Kurdistan yet there is a mass amount of non-kurdish areas being invaded and moreover if people where to look up this conflict it is unlikely they type "2019 Rojava Offensive."
But what about operations instead of invasion? Than the article could include follow up operations and such which might not strictly be considered part of the invasion. If those would get their own article with an equally vague name then it might get difficult to navigate for people who haven’t spend hours discussing neutral names on a Wikipedia talk page. Dorromikhal ( talk) 12:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Turkish president emphasised it will be a restricted operation by creating a 30 km-deep (20 miles) safe zone in Northern Syria. "offensive" or "invasion" titles are not in accordance with WP:NPOV. This operation is obviously like Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch. There's no difference. The title should be "Operation Peace Spring" and opposition side has to prove that why it has to be changed.-- Sabri76' talk 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
El C has move-protected the article, which was the right thing to do; that it was The Wrong Version is just part and parcel of the process whereby an admin stays out of content matters. But I think anyone who's ever closed an RfC can look over this discussion to conclude that the current title ("Rojava offensive"), the former title ("Peace Spring" or whatever), and the intermediate title ("anything with invasion") are to be discredited for POV reasons, and that variants of "2019 offensive by Turks in Northern Syria" or something like that are supported by a preponderance of editors--with arguments. If this doesn't get solved quickly, I'll post on WP:AN or maybe the RfC talk page to have someone with experience look at this and make the call. We can NOT have POV article names in such current matters. Drmies ( talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Per convention: only "reactions" from those directly involved. Thank you. A4516416, please be careful with what you call "vandalism". Drmies ( talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So what's the consensus? Since countries like Finland and Australia have been added, why have Belgium, Sweden and the reaction of other European countries not been re-added? -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
it's not POV to say 'invasion' - or should we then change "US invasion of iraq"? Vhstef ( talk) 01:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added invasion to the intro. Wikipedia is banned in Turkey so who cares about appeasement! User178198273998166172 ( talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm noticing that @ A4516416: has been repeatedly removing, moving, and rewriting this particular sentence:
According to a spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the operation is intended to " correct the demographics" of northern Syria. [1] [2]
References
At least one of us has to follow WP:BRD if anything's going to get done, and I feel like if I don't take it to talk, nobody will, so I'm making it into a thread myself. Vanilla Wizard 💙 07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanilla Wizard and A4516416: Both of you have violated WP:1RR ( Vanilla Wizard 1, Vanilla Wizard 2, Vanilla Wizard 3, Vanilla Wizard 4, A4516416 1, A4516416 2, A4516416 3, A4516416 4, and a few more each for the "officially called" and page move reverts). This is not even about BRD. No more reverts before a consensus is reached on this, please. Note that 1RR violations automatically warrant blocks. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
whether involving the same or different material. You've each broken 1RR multiple times. Even without the 1RR notice, you've each broken 3RR. This is independent of any other policy reason for making an edit, such as BRD or POV, with the only exceptions given here. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, per the wording at 3RR. However, I would suggest taking a step back from this article and focus your attention elsewhere for now or at least take the time to calm down. It's a controversial topic, stay cool. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Rojava" is not a real place and is not recognized as such by any nation, even its official name is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and it is in itself an unrecognized entity. Please rename the article to "2019 Turkish-Syrian Kurdish offensive" or something like this that actually follows reality. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
None of these media outlets mentions the word "rojava" in these stories. They simply refer to the area by the facts, that is Kurdish-controlled areas, SDF-controlled areas, Kurdish forces, etc. Any serious attempt at fixing the credibility of these articles? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We are not a live news feed, so can we not have up to the minute updates everything a new claim is made. Causalities, gains and loses ect can be left out until we know the truth. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And another example of why this is a bad idea [ [18]]. If we cannot know who and what these places are (or even if they exist) this is all wasting our readers time. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its a war, do we really need every town that is shelled, and a list of each engagements casualties, surely daily totals are enoug>? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, a captured HUMVEE, this is worthy of inclusion? Its hard to not start getting sarky here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Right. Eventually we need to get rid of the daily reports and summarize them into sections. Lightspecs ( talk) 10:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it biased to mention Turkish civilians killed along with their ages when God knows how many Kurdish and Syrian civilians have died under indiscriminate Turkish shelling and aerial bombing. It is a fact many more have died, and plenty of children too. Is this particular editor trying to gain sympathy for Turkey? Let's keep it objective and not mention the ages of those killed. I have nothing aganist using Turkish government sponsored media, but let's not be biased for one side please and give unnecessary details. User178198273998166172 ( talk) 16:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree one of the editor is not letting his person bias get in the way of truth. (I am personally biased to the SDF.) I had to change "109 Terrorists" to "109 SDF fighters." However i find it unnecessary the inclusion of personal details and there is a clear bias when not addressing Turkish bombing which lead to the killings of 5 people. Also i had an entire section completely deleted on Syrian Refugees with no prior reason as to why I assume it is just someone who does not like the information given. It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people, it should obviously be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
So are we in general agreement to remove the lengthy section of individuals killed in the bombardment and replace it with a more simplified less expansive section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Al-Mushrifah cannot be in the war zone, so either there is another (I can find no reference to it) or the claim is a lie. This raises doubts as to the veracity of any claims to have captured anywhere, and such references should be removed. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I also saw this and it made no sense as it is firmly in the control of the Assad Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Rojava offensive has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1 more Turkish soldier has been killed in the operation. So the death per Turkey should be chagned from 1 to 2. Source: https://www.ntv.com.tr/amp/turkiye/baris-pinari-harekatinda-1-asker-sehit,Gbf6_KscwUy_Dc6D1cWAeg 31.21.68.15 ( talk) 14:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the neutrality of this article is dubious it does indeed state 2. However the bias seems irrelevant in this case as Turkey does not benefit from reporting this.
"Number of martyrs rose to 2 in Peace Spring Operation
The news of the martyr came on the third day of the Peace Spring Operation. Ministry of Defense announced that a soldier was martyred. Thus, the number of soldiers killed in the operation rose to 2. 2 soldiers were killed and 3 soldiers were wounded in Azez, west of Euphrates."
I Understand the majority of people here can not read Turkish however google translate is very easy to use. Also this is clearly biased in favor of Turkish State Media however i have no doubt that this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Rojava#/media/File:De_facto_cantons_of_Rojava.png
OK, we now have a source [21]. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (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.
@ Admins, please see the Talk page above. Despite reaching some consensus in the discussion, there has been no action on the name change since the first "unexplained move" was done without any discussion. This current scandalous name "2019 Rojava offensive" is on the first page and represents a stab in Wikipedia's credibility, since no one else (including other wikis) uses this fake name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Or ANYBODY else. Can you do this change for me? Source says 342 killed [22]. Some user changed it to killed wounded or captured thinking source claimed the word NEUTRALIZED. I asked him to undo but he is either ignoring or is just AFK User talk:WoofersSCW. KasimMejia ( talk) 14:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If you people honestly believe in Turkish casualty estimates for their enemies, who they dismiss as 'terrorists', I think that is beyond stupid. This page could be worse if Wikipedia were not banned in Turkey, yet there are still plently of Turks it seems writing biased information. How would Turkey know how many SDF fighters have died??? Are they counting the bodies? No, Turkey bombs a city and then says "We killed 2503 TERRORISTS!". It is laughable and not worthy of being on this page. I trust and most editors here trust SDF and SOHR estimates rather than Turkish ones. User178198273998166172 ( talk) 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need a Wikipedia consensus whether to include this or not? There were 7 Turkish civilians killed yesterday with 5 of them being children, yet some user has deliberately removed the fact that they are children [23] although there are sources mentioning it. Can someone reinclude it? I don't want to violate 1RR, even though the user who did the revert has. KasimMejia ( talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
In my overall opinion it is useless information in other articles on the Syrian civil war it does not tell the age even if the information is available. It is not as if the SDF intended for civilians to be hurt. The only information that tells is that the conflict is brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Regarding this, [24] I think you're taking it a bit too far, the main three sources in this article should be, per Turkey, per SDF and per SOHR. You don't need to type the name of every different Turkish website, that just makes it confusing. You are welcome to say according to Turkey. KasimMejia ( talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If source A says 10 and source B says "Another town was captured" that does not mean 11 town were captured. We have no way of knowing if the first source took the "other town" into account or not. As we do not know when that town was captured. We know when the official announcement was made, but that is not the same as when it occurred. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ KasimMejia: - get over it. I trust Slatersteven and I’m absolutely confident he is acting in good faith. starship .paint ( talk) 23:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong. This wasn't settled. @ EkoGraf: - why did you restore the 10 October source in an attempt to add casualties to a 12 October source? [32] How do you know that the 1 person isn't already counted in the 28 people?? starship .paint ( talk) 14:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)