This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Explosives Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I do believe this is a notable event as it marks a turning point in the conflict between the Syrian army/Russian air force and the Turkish army and has received substantial media attention --156.62.34.1 (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, agree with you. The shape of the conflict in Hama/Iblid will change and more political consequences will come. Especially regarding Turkey and Erdogan. Maybe more Russian escalation will take place to de escalate Turkey.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened, no declaration of war by Turkey on Syria or Russia, no NATO joint declaration (vetoed by Greece), no US support for Turkey.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 108.20.218.42 , what proof do you have that HTS and SNA were the targets of the airstrikes, and not the Turkish Armed Forces? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As answer to EkoGraf (talk · contribs): None of the sources that claim that ‘’50-70 soldiers killed (per other sources, close to Turkey)’’, are actually close to them, at all. In fact, not even a single one of the 4 sources cited there, are Turkish to begin with. Only Metin Gurcan, a former ‘’military analyst on social media’’ is cited there and claimed the possibility of higher losses, tho he had no evidence to back it up at all. It’s simply wrong to call it ‘’close to the Turkish government/Turkey sources’’. The other sources basically base it on social media posts, unanimous officials etc. Just media speculation, which imo should not be preferred over official sources.

So sharing this as ‘’ However, alternative sources close to Turkey, suggested a significantly higher death toll, ranging from 50 to 70 casualties,’’, is wrong in several ways. And again, the term ‘’casualties’’ is used here once again, instead of ‘’deaths’’ or ‘’killed’’.

And regarding wheter it were 33 or 34 deaths: this is from the official site of the Turkish ministry of defense: [1] . It clearly stated there 33 deaths as well. Also take into consideration that none of the injured soldiers from the Balyun strikes, died in the following days or week (if there was, could you provide a source for that?), which again, proves my point that the statement from Erdogan includes the later death, which brings it up to 34. Would highly recommend if editors do a full research on the Turkish media first before they take such decisions based on claims made by someone like Mr.User200, who has been stalking me and erasing edits of mine for several weeks now. Woxic1589 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four sources cited which mention the death tolls ranging are Turkish. Der Spiegel quote [2] "A Turkish official told SPIEGEL that at least 50 Turkish soldiers had died." The Guardian quote [3] The death toll may have totalled up to 55, according to Metin Gurcan, a military analyst writing for the respected online regional platform al-Monitor. The Al Monitor source (third source) cites a figure of 50 to 55 (which is in line with the first two whose figures came from Turkish sources). The fourth reference's figure for 70 dead isn't per a direct Turkish source, however, it is according to the rebels, who are close to Turkey, which is what is written in the article. As for the term "casualties", I only now noticed that the lead-in paragraph of the article uses it, which is factually incorrect as you pointed out, since "casualties" refers to both dead and wounded, which is contrary to what the four sources are saying (death toll/dead). So I will correct this, thank you for pointing it out. As for any speculation if Erdogan included the soldier killed from the following day in the figure of 34, as I said, unless it is confirmed by sources, it is considered unverified original research by Wikipedia. The source you provided from the Turkish Ministry of Defence is out-dated by eight days compared to the newer source which is citing Erdogan. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I might not have been that clear on the first part. With ‘’Turkish sources’’ I meant sources that were actually ’’Turkish’’. So by either the source site (a Turkish news site for example) or in language. I’m glad you understood my point about the ‘’casualties’’ part. Same goes for the source that cited the ‘’rebels’’. Sure, they are supported by Turkey, but its again a unanimous source from a militant group.

‘’Turkish official told SPIEGEL’’- again, a unanimous official to a German news agency about a incident happening in Syria (?).

Now I’m gonna sound biased, but anything thats mentioned by Al-Monitor, should not be considered as ‘’close to Turkey’’. Especially not from a former ‘’analyst’’ like Metin Gurcan. If being a Turkish national makes you ‘’close to Turkey’’, like as in close to the Turkish government, then I don’t think thats the right wording for that. We are talking about analysts with a opposition background.

And for the last part, yes, the ‘’Erdogan source’’ is more recent, but my point was, that Erdogan very likely includes the later death into the total figure of 33, which is what I tried to explain above. Imo, if I could ask for more opinions from others, both numbers should be included (like this: 33-34). Its the official one while Erdogan’s is just from one live speech, which could have been easily been a error from him as well (he’s known for making errors like that during his live speeches). I like to hear your opinion on this as well. Woxic1589 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy of editing is based on WP:Verifiability. That is, its based on editing as per reliable sources. Der Speigel, Al-Monitor and The Guardian, which are the sources cited, are considered reliable by Wikipedia. They are not listed as either unreliable or deprecated sources by Wikipedia. Further, Wikipedia guidelines state that we should use secondary sources (like the three mentioned) rather than primary sources (which is for example the citation to the Turkish Ministry of Defense). Just because the sources cited are not Turkish does not mean they are unreliable and in fact Wikipedia's guidelines regarding secondary sources approve the usage of these three, rather than Turkish sources which are closer to the events. Speculating that Erdogan made an error during his speech is considered unsourced Original Research (WP:Original Research) by Wikipedia and is not accepted when making edits, unless it is backed by by verifiable/reliable sources. For the sake of compromise, I would be open to adding a death toll range of 33-34 as you suggest, if other editors also agree. If they agree, I will add it myself. PS Also, have a Happy New Year and happy editing! :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources reporting 50, 55 and 70 killed Turkish soldiers are close to Turkey. Mr.User200 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the ‘’33-34’’ proposal then. Though I want to clarify my point a bit further. My point is not necessarily about the reliability, but whether these sources can be considered as ‘’close to Turkey’’, as is stated right now in the article and infobox. I would rather change that to just ‘’other sources’’ as all 4 sources differ from each other and cite different anonymous accounts/analysts (like Metin Gurcan from Al-Monitor, whom I wouldn’t call as close to Turkey or the Turkish government).

Anyway, happy new year! :) Woxic1589 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering no other editors have responded here so far (nor do I think that anyone is really interested in it), I think we can add the ‘’33-34’’ figure to the page now. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, they are not close to Turkey as in to Turkish security sources nor government sources. Just because a Turkish social media analyst (more affiliated with the opposition, see Metin Gurcan), an anonymous ‘’Turkish official’’ (who?) and an anonymous ’’Syrian rebel source’’ speaking to a German newspaper, doesn’t make it close to Turkey. Its completely misleading the readers of this page with speculation. Woxic1589 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]