Talk:Operation Niki

Infobox result

WP:VICTORY is quite clear: The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result".

Trying to pitch this operation as a victory or a failure seems to be the option preferred by people failing to edit with a neutral point of view, but the best option for an operation as poorly executed as this one is the point people at the aftermath section, especially because the result does not accurately fit with the above restrictions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@ShovelandSpade: Please stop changing the result inappropriately. That some people participated in a subsequent battle doesn't make the operation a victory. All it means is that some people survived the operation. By that standard, the Titanic had a successful oceanic voyage. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Titanic never reached its destination, what you just said is laughable. The point of the operation was to reinforce the units already in Cyprus something that they did, people dying in an operation doesnt make it a failure even if its friendly fire. And 100+ people isnt "some". ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that labeling any operation that is so rife with failures as being a "successful operation" is not an objective assessment. Given the friendly fire, the high casualty count, and the failure to transport so many of the intended troops, it's more appropriate to direct readers to the aftermath section and that is what WP:VICTORY says we should be doing. I urge you to reconsider and restore the previous version of the article until there's consensus here to label the result otherwise. I would also urge you to read the neutral point of view policy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I dont disagree with you in that the execution of this operation was poor in terms of the arrival to Nicosia, however as previously stated, you measure victory or success in terms of completion of objectives. One could argue it was phyrric but even then it really wasnt since the unit was pretry much able to hold up by itself at Nicosia airport (With only 4 Cypriot commandos to assist them) and also proceeded to take part in various other battles/skirmishes across Nicosia.

In Neptune Spear a helicopter went down and blew that it was a US military operation but that was irrelevant as bin laden was killed thus the overall operation was a success.

Point du hoc, over 150 casualties out of a force of about 250 however the operation was still deemed a success. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on why I have trouble calling this a success, the objective of the operation was to transport a unit using 20 Noratlas and 10 C-47 aircraft. Only 15 Noratlases were able to depart and none of the C-47s. Of the 15 Noratlases, only 13 made it to Cyprus. One was shot down by friendly fire, two more were heavily damaged by friendly fire and unable to return, and another was unable to return due to a lack of fuel. 33 people died and 10 were heavily wounded. It was a tragedy for the people on those three aircraft as well as the people on the ground. Labeling the operation as an unconditional success based on a subsequent battle doesn't make sense. It seems to clearly be somewhere between "success" and "failure". Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so were clear, the reason im keeping it as an operational success is:

• The objectives of the operation were achieved as far as getting the soldiers on the ground and re-inforcing the National Guard and ELDYK units, something again which was achieved and displayed in what later ensued as the Battle of Nicosia Airport and Agios Dometios (Both of which have wiki pages you can find)
• Unless the operation is canceled or the objectives are not achieved, people dying doesn't make it a failure even if the planning and/or execution was poor, even if by pure luck the operation worked, it worked however this is addressed later in the article.

I don't disagree with you that the operation was poorly executed by command especially given the fact that it was other units and more equipment was meant to be sent under the operation Niki (Planning process), but at the point where most made it to the airport and successfully carried out their orders, I dont see a logical way how the operation was sucessful. ShovelandSpade (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you disagree when you've made edits that label the operation a "Greek victory" and removing "poorly executed" from the lead. I've tried my best to improve the tone and neutrality of the article (e.g., [1] and [2]) due to past disruptive editing, but since it seems like we are at an impasse, I've requested a third opinion on this disagreement. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont remember if I put Greek victory, if I did it was in error as they didnt exactly fight anyone on arrival they just dodged radar, if you want to put poorly executed then by all means add it but then you would also have to keep the operation being overall sucessful. ShovelandSpade (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Do we really need the result field here? In fact, do we really need to frame this as a battle at all? WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX says Most of the fields in each infobox can be omitted if desired; the choice of which ones are appropriate for a particular article is left to the discretion of the article's editors. This operation wasn't a battle between Greece and Turkey, so a lot of the fields don't really fit here. In my opinion, we should blank result, both combatant1 and combatant2, as well as casualties2, strength2, and units2. That would better show this as a non-combat Greek operation in support of the larger Turkish Invasion of Cyprus conflict. See User:Wburrow/sandbox for what the infobox looks like with those fields blanked. If that's too radical of a suggestion, then I agree that WP:VICTORY should be followed and the result field should point to the Aftermath section since even "Operational success" is too nuanced for this field. Wburrow (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wburrow: Thanks for helping out with the third opinion request. Removing the fields works for me and would be consistent with the MOS. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If its like that wouldnt it be better just to remove thaf infobox overall and just add the military operation infobox? It would technically make more sense as nobody fought anything at that point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military operation ShovelandSpade (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The operation template isn't listed at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, so I didn't know it existed, but that seems more appropriate than Template:Infobox military conflict. Wburrow (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I updated my sandbox with the operation template, trying to get the info into the proper new fields, but I'd consider it a rough draft. Feel free to copy and adjust the wording and field usage as you see fit. Wburrow (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources indicate the objective was to reinforce the fighting units on the island with men and material, not any more specific location such as the airport. Even with the different template, I think listing the outcome as a success or failure probably doesn't follow WP:RESULT, though. Showing something like N out M commandos transported might be reasonable if we can find sourced numbers for the full number that were mustered in Greece vs. how many were successfully transported. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - like I said, what I put in there was only intended as a draft/example of what might go where. I will say, though, that I interpret WP:RESULT as applying pretty specifically to the result field of the conflict template. The guidance for the outcome field on the operation template (i.e. the outcome of the operation from the perspective of the planners with a very brief summary of defence if appropriate.) seems to leave a lot more room for interpretation of different levels of success or failure. C.f. the guidance for result on Template:Infobox military operation: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Wburrow (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Made one small change to the sanbox edit, removed the Cypriot National Guard as though they were meant to know (Ended up not knowing), they didnt have any role to play in the actual operation. ShovelandSpade (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the "not knowing" is better expressed with the planned_by field because they ended up being involved and should be included in the infobox.

Also, following up on my previous comment above, "successful" and "heavy" do not seem like neutral phrasing for the outcome so rephrased the outcome field to simply state the outcome. There was a reinforcement and there were losses. We can leave further description of the outcome to the aftermath section. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is they weren't part of the planning process at all, they got involved cause they ended up engaging, doesn't mean they were part of planning. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. That's why they should be listed as being involved, just not under planning. The infobox isn't about the plan. It's about the operation. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the "planned by" ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the template. I did make one additional change, to remove "heavily" as an adjective for "wounded" because it didn't appear in the article text. If a reliable source says "heavily" then we can add it back. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources and maintenance tag removals

@ShovelandSpade: Please restore the maintenance tag you removed in this edit unless there is consensus that it should be removed. As stated in WP:SELFPUBLISH: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Andreas Constandinos would also need to have published works in the relevant field by a reliable independent publication to be considered a SME in this area. The main issue is that we should not be using an AuthorHouse publication as a source.

Further, this edit is very problematic. Not only did you remove another valid maintenance tag, but if someone used the source, it was likely necessary as support for information in the article. Removing all of those citations without verifying that the other sources contain the same information, and are also reliable sources, is not appropriate at all.

The issues with citations in this article are also not helped by the lack of quotations in citations based on sources that are not widely available, but that is another issue. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did verify, because I looked. ShovelandSpade (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You literally claim its a personal website/blog then complain when I remove said source? What exactly do you want? ShovelandSpade (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A self-published book should not be used as a source. The Solanakis source appears to be a personal website that doesn't even exist anymore. Both are still used in the article. Moving citations from one place to another and removing the tag at the same time doesn't fix the issues. It makes them less visible and that's not a good thing for the quality of the article. Please restore the tags until better sources, verifiable and reliable sources, can be found to replace them. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats why I removed the source mate, youre not fixing the issue either youre adding maintenance tags then leaving the page be, thats not helpful at all. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the article. Valid maintenance tags shouldn't be removed in anticipation of future edits. They should be removed when the issue is resolved. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ive removed tags that have been fixed, if you just add random tags and dont explain where or why youre adding them then yes they will be removed when someone else thinks they have been fixed. In all honesty this article needs to go back to the sandbox until the issues are resolved as there is a plethora of issues in it. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You've removed tags multiple times without fixing them. All of the tags I added had explanations and were based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are not random tags. All am I asking is that you not remove valid tags unless there's consensus here on the talk page that they are unnecessary.

As I mentioned above, I think the issue with the article is the sourcing. It would be better with more sources that were available for verification or at least included verifying quotes from sources that are not broadly available. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, ive literally fixed your issues and have removed them, the Solonakis article isnt even there anymore and thats just to name one. Like ive also previously said, at least look for sources instead of tagging 90% of the page and leaving. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)