Talk:2023 Turkish drone shootdown

Anka-S not a TB2 that was shot down

Information is incorrect, it was an Anka-S not a TB2 that was shot down by most reports and assessments of debree. Midgetman433 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources in this article say that it was a Bayraktar TB2, though they were early reports. I was able to find this newer reliable source which states that the drone was identified as an Anka-S. @AgisdeSparte: Any thoughts on this? Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That Anka-S is indeed the drone that was shot down. The reporters that write the articles usually can't tell what is what, so they see drone shot down trending on twitter, they immediately write TB2, b/c thats the only one they know. Article title should definitely be changed. I would make it more generic, like "Drone shootdown" just incase, but it was definitely an ANKA-S. And it was operated by Turkish Intelligence services not the Military, which is why there was miscommunication, as the deconfliting line/channel was only with the Military, so there was miscommunication and no warnings or calls were ever received. Midgetman433 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Midgetman433 @Deauthorized Thank you for bringing up this discussion. First, I'd like to address the claim made in comment 1 that it was an Anka-S and not a TB2. It's worth noting that most reports and assessments initially identified it as a TB2. Politico, for example, reported that they spoke to a U.S. official who confirmed it was a TB2. While it's true that some later reports suggest it might have been an Anka-S, this source cites "some commentators", thus not endorsing this theory all the way.

Given this discrepancy, it might be appropriate to include a section in the article that acknowledges the fact that some comentators suggested it was an Anka-S and not a TB2. This would provide a balanced view of the situation.

Lastly, in response to comment 3, it's important to note that much of the information provided there does not appear to be sourced. While it's valid to have differing opinions, it's crucial to base our content on verifiable and reliable sources. The assertion that it was a "mistake" by journalists seems to contradict the information that is quoted from Politico from U.S. officials. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Did this unnamed official themselves quote saying it was a TB2? or did Politico misattribute that to this unnamed official. I don't see any spicific quote from an official saying it was a TB2, my guess is, its Politico's mistake, other newspapers have said its ANKA-S as well, like Forbes(https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/10/06/pentagon-says-it-shot-down-turkish-drone-over-syria-turkey-says-it-was-not-theirs/?sh=74e9da62446f), its not just randos on twitter. Turkish sources also saying its ANKA, there was a statement from the Turkish Ministry. https://www.savunmasanayist.com/turk-disislerinden-suriyede-vurulan-anka-ile-ilgili-aciklama/ Midgetman433 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, we need rename the article to 2023 Turkish drone shootdown, despite we should be especific with the type. It's clearly not a Bayraktar drone as initially reported. Images of the wreck clearly show it was a Anka-S.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"outlawed Turkey's PKK" wording

@AgisdeSparte: I notice you reverted my removal of "Turkey's" in this phrase.

"Awkward" is subjective, so I'll try to elaborate on my own thinking here. Placing "Turkey's" after "outlawed" here seems to imply the existence of an organization referred to as "Turkey's PKK", which doesn't seem right to me unless there exists a country-specific branch of the organization. Placing it before (as in "Turkey's outlawed PKK") sounds a bit better, but in my view it has the same implication that the PKK is specific to Turkey.

While the organization is not banned in Iraq or Syria, I think the preceding phrase "which Turkey views as" is enough to indicate that it's Turkey's position on the organization, not any other country. I originally thought about changing it to "PKK, which is outlawed in Turkey"; I felt that this was redundant but if you think this is a necessary clarification then I'm open to this wording.

I should note that the Reuters article cited in this section says, "U.S. support for Kurdish forces in northern Syria has long caused tension with Turkey, which views them as a wing of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)." This seems pretty similar to the wording I originally had. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 12:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Anon126 Good morning,

I did so because I found important for the understanding to convey that the PKK is the Kurdish separatist group banned in Turkey which is perceived by Turkish authorities to have links with the YPG, which partly explains the military actions and tensions.

However, I'd like to point out that the wording in the article can vary depending on style and clarity, and both versions can be acceptable with different nuances. I'm not a native English-speaker, so if you tell me that this seems ankward in the sense of the formulation, I understand it, and I'll return to your previous version, then, this doesn't pose any problem.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)