Jump to content

Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.3.59 (talk) at 16:28, 10 October 2019 (→Turkish civilian deaths). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Name of the article

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)[reply]

Agree with both, the past Turkish OP's in Syria were called by their officials names, see Operation Olive Branch, Operation Euphrates Shield so should be this. Also Operation Peace Spring, is the correct translation. Not Operation Spring of Peace. A4516416 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki NPOV actual goes against using one sides operational name over another. A more neutral name would not refer to the operational name.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree "Operation Peace Spring" is the operation name as defined by one of the belligerent sides, and as such, I do not consider it a neutral name. I'm sure that the SDF will have their own operation name soon, and I strongly doubt it would match the Turkish side's name. As for the other operations, I actually believe they should be subjected to the same treatment. I do not know why, but Turkish military operations seem to be named by their Turkish-defined names, which is in contrast to most established customs, even within the Syrian Civil War niche. For example, the Syrian Government's recent offensive in Idlib was dubbed by a neutral name - namely Northwestern Syria offensive (April-August 2019) and not by the name given to it by the Syrian Government - "Operation Dawn of Idlib", a stark contrast to operations begun by the Turkish government. Using the operation's name as defined by only one side could constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Instead, I'd suggest we refer to it as "Turkish military operation in Northern Syria" and create a redirect pointing there from "Operation Peace Spring", so any reader that is searching for the article using the Turkish-defined name could still easily find it. I consider that to be an equitable compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems obvious that this is NOT a neutral title. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the more I think about it the more offensive it becomes to me to adopt the propagandistic title of a warring faction for this attack. I have moved it to a wordy but neutral title. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest speedy rename back to Operation Peace Spring and protection from moving! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Operation Peace Spring, as it is a Turkish military operation codenamed that. The codenames are what we have the other 2 Turkish military operations in Syria under, and it is concise. It should also be protected from moving, regardless of what the name is. -Thespündragon 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title (2019 Rojava offensive) is the worst possible option here because of its ambiguity. Since it doesn't mention that Turkey is doing the offensive-ing, it implies that it's Rojava, as the only named party, which is attacking. I don't have much of an opinion on using the operation name, though I find Goodposts' argument reasonable, but either way we're going to need at least one more rename. ansh.666 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer something along the lines of "2019 Turkish offensive in Rojava" - I don't like "2019 Rojava offensive" because it almost makes it sound as if Rojava is the belligerent on the offensive, which isn't accurate. I know we've used the Turkish operation names before on other articles, but in all honesty I really don't think it should be that way. I completely share the concern of Drmies here. Titles like Operation Peace Spring and Operation Olive Branch are simply Orwellian. I'd support any title that indicates that it's a Turkish military operation, as others have suggested, but using Turkey's names which are intended to make their offensive invasion sound like a peacekeeping mission is obviously neither neutral nor accurate.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest name change to 2019 Turkish invasion of Northern Syria. Rojava is the name of the Kurdish region of Syria but it is not really encompassing of the many Arab regions of Northern Syria which are being invaded. Manbij may also be invaded and this Arab-majority town is outside the Rojava region of Syria. In addition, many Arabs and other non-Kurds are part of the SDF so I think a title like Northern Syria is far better suited. As for using the term 'invasion', this is nothing else but an invasion by definition. Whether you believe this invasion is justified (according to Turkish narrative) or whether you beleive it is clear Turkish agression is your opinion. But the word invasion needs to stand in place of military 'offensive', which makes this Turkish aggression sound innocent and like this any other battle of the Syrian civil war (on Wikipedia). In reality, the Syrian regime has condemned the Turkish invasion as a clear violation of the territory of Syria, and the SDF have done likewise. So the Turks are unwanted and Damascus has also condemned the Turkish operation as an 'invasion'. I agree with User:Vanilla Wizard in that the Turkish names for their various invasion operations are misleading.

User:User178198273998166172 02:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No serious news outlet uses the word "rojava", outside PYD/YPG/PKK sources. If you are not going by the official name, then I would suggest something like "Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria" or something along that line. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's my preference too, "2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria". Says simply: when, who, what, where; in the most recognizable terms possible. Normally I'd advise waiting for sources but in this case I doubt they'll standardize on a single name. ansh.666 05:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Rojava before discussing whether or not to use the name "Rojava." We've crossed that bridge through lengthy discussion before and it would be a mistake to re-cross it on every Rojava-related article.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reviewing the talk page at Talk:Rojava, I just realized that this user (Amr ibn Kulthoum) actually participated in the discussion there, and they suggested that the page "[[Rojava]]" should be renamed to "[[Kurdish occupied areas in northeastern Syria]]", comparing it to ISIL. I sincerely apologize if this comes off as an NPA violation, but their prior comments on this subject are problematic.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a change of name to Turkish Invasion of Northern Eastern Syria as Rojava refers only the Kurdish sections of Syria and the fighting is happening on a much larger front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Operation Peace Spring, because on other operations like Operation Euphrates Shield, and Operation Olive Branch, the code-name's were used. Changing this to "Rojava" is basically pushing your own agenda of non-existent place. "Rojava Offensive" has 179,000 results on Google, while "Operation Peace Spring" has 81,800,000 and "Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria" has 36,200,000 results. "Turkish Operation in Northern Syria" has 98,700,000 results, but this contains the other oeprations as well. Let us say, we re-named it to Turkish Operation in Northern Syria, is any detail be given about that? Which Turkish Operation? Olive Branch, Euphrates Shield, Peace Spring, Idlib? Which? Beshogur (talk)
  • Rename to Operation Peace Spring, just like the previous two Turkish military campaigns in Syria are referred to by their official names. Besides, literally no media source uses the term Rojava, not even Rudaw, the official broadcaster for Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government. Mostly "military incursion into Northeastern Syria/NE Syria" are used. Berkaysnklf (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to Operarion Peace Spring Why on earth should WP use the fringe name of the aggressors for an illegal operation? The suggestion is absolutely preposterous and would be the most POV imaginable. I see almost no media in English using that name, making the discussion a non-starter. Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why you call it "fringe" is because the operation name contains the word "Peace"? By Operation Olive Branch, some people were intented to remove that name as well, but it was concluded that it is actually going to stay like this. We should use the name what the operation actually is called. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually called"? By whom? Could you point me to the Kurdish sources calling it Operation Peace Spring. It's an inherently POV name, as it is the name by the aggressor in the conflict, not used by both parties, and not the common usage in media in English (and this is English Wikipedia, WP:UE applies). Jeppiz (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, in line with how English language sources present the operation as well as staying away from orwellian codenames that happen to be not particularly prevalent in English-language media reports.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Using the Turkish code, or the Kurdish "Rojava" is not NPOV. The region where the campaign is taking place is in Syria, which the name used by most serious media outlets.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree I suggest move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, why use a fringe name/codename using by one particular participant. Title should be descriptive and neutral. I had no idea Rojava was a region in Syria and there are other regions being invaded, therefore it should at least mention Syria and preferably north-eastern Syria if a more specific region is required. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree. And I support a name change to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria for already given reasons. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal of 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria for the reasons I've already stated. Goodposts (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Operation Peace Spring, in line with the previously established template of naming the other two Turkish offensives in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose As detailed Rojava means "Western Kurdistan" (Syrian Kurdistan) in Kurdish areas of the fighting is not just within the geographic area of rojava which is not used by the SDF because of the different groups in the region. Moreover when people are looking up this conflict it is unlikely they will search "Rojava Offensive." Everyone will remember this conflict as "Turkish war in Northern Syria" i also dislike the name as prior to the attack there was absolutely SDF attacks on Turkey moreover the SDF has not attempted to provoke turkey. Some people dislike the term "Invasion" due to the dubious nature of SDF having territory, so i would like to have a compromise change "Offensive" to "Attack" there is no denying that Turkey instigated the fighting in Northern Syria regardless of bias. (Although my personal bias in favor of the SDF.) I think this would be the best method of the Title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed the RM below. Seeing that there is already a developing consensus here, this section should eventually be closed via WP:ANRFC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do RS call it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

@Drmies: courtesy ping to the admin mentioned in the following discussion that made the page move. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for the name "Operation Peace Spring", as the discussion above clearly demonstrates. Goodposts (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PLEASE DISCUSS IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION called "#Name of the article". Sorry to the people I pinged. This is not a closure of this requested move. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Redundant - The move discussion is still ongoing and a consensus will be reached. While it is normally standard to keep the pre-discussion name until a new consensus is reached, the page was moved by an administrator because they believed that the original name was an offensive violation of the policy on neutrality. Users are evidently split on what the name should be, so you're welcomed to join the discussion above.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 06:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

why are we re-proposing titles in a second discussion less than 12 hours after starting the previous discussion? the nom requested a procedural speedy move, but turning this into a multi-threaded discussion when we were already engaged in one seems like a preventable headache  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 06:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanilla Wizard and A4516416: - I don't mind deleting this entire thread. Do you? starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The deletion of this. Apparently an Admin has moved it to his current state. Does the admin have more consensus rights over regular users? It was in its previous name with the consensus of three users, it still has consensus by 5 users now (increased). But apparently an admin has seen the current name more fit? Even though more users disagreed with him. And now we have to stick with this name because an admin feels so? I still insist of speedy move until the discussion above is finished. A4516416 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't mind that at all, but if this thread is going to stay, I'd prefer that the discussion is limited to the nominator's requested move to the previous name. It's already difficult to form a consensus when we have one thread in which we're proposing as many potential names as we can think of, but having two at the same time would be painfully taxing. It's better for all of us that we limit our own wikistress by keeping the move proposals in one open section at a time.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 07:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's why I opened this anyway, to stick to this name change. Now can we actually get an admin to make this move in under 24 hours? You might now better how to get an administrators intervention. A4516416 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria, as proposed by several users. An obvious and strong oppose to Operation Peace Spring, as that is not an official name except for the aggressor, nor is it what most English language media use. The claims by its proponents that it's the "official" would only be correct if Wikipedia was subject to the Turkish regime. Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Let us not discuss in this subsection, but in the main section above: #Name of the article. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmmm you have a good point at 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)[reply]

My autocorrect split the word treatment into threat meant for some reason. It should say treatment. Dorromikhal (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, the adoption if the word "rojava" by Wikipedia is scandalous and pure POV and whitewashing. Again, as I said before, no RESPECTED INTERNATIONAL media source/organization or entity uses the word "rojava" outside YPG/PKK affiliated sources. Even those used this word to refer to Kurdish-majority areas, which are strictly the northern part of al-Hasakah governorate, and two other small pockets along the Turkish border. You can see the Talk page of the rojava article for more details, and I am prepared to provide examples here again if people want to see them. However, a handful of users decided the fate of the name adoption, while almost everyone outside Wikipedia uses northeastern Syria or East of Euphrates to describe the region. It is about time for someone neutral with some logic to review all these articles. Having said that, any name suggesting a military operation in northeastern Syria is fine with me. BTW, the FSA is participating in this, ans I don't think you can call this an invasion. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • User:Sabri76, your reasoning is faulty. That other articles have POV titles (with names provided by the militarily superior or politically most powerful party) is no reason to do it here as well. User:Nice4What, do not expect to be thanked for your edit warring, let alone for your unexplained move to "Rojava", a word that doesn't even occur on this talk page until after your move: that is hallmark disruption and, I gather from comments here, not neutral either. You yourself haven't even mentioned it here. User:Vhstef, your move (to "invasion") is POV as well, by its very word choice.

    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)[reply]

Obviously, the majority of users are against using the word "rojava" in the title and prefer "northeastern Syria", and one user had decided to make the previous name move based on their single opinion. I think "2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria" should encompass the vast majority of the previous opinions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Reactions"

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)[reply]

France should be re-added since they have soldiers in the region. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if any text made that clear--more importantly, if any French reaction addressed that. BTW lots of countries have troops in the region; it's not equally important for all those countries. We shouldn't put any Kurdish response on a par with that of Belgium or Finland or whatever. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too many countries, was too quick to judge without reading to content at the revert there, there are too many unnecessary countries not involved. A4516416 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only America, France, Denmark (medical) and the UK have troops in Northeastern Syria. This article mentions French and British troops and the scenario of an American withdrawal[2] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that adding reactions from world and regional powers, as well as neighbouring countries, should also be included. Any country with "boots on the ground" should definitely also be included, regardless of how small the contingent actually is. International organizations, such as the Arab League and UN should also be included in the reactions tab. What should be excluded, however, are generic political statements that don't really address the situation. My 2 cents. Goodposts (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added Egypt's reaction, since it called for an emergency meeting of the Arab League (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Hungary blocked EU condemnation. Could be included in the International Reactions, or could be passed as a note for the reaction of EU. 131.111.5.154 (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such convention and there shouldn't be one. See Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, and Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests for just a few examples. Lightspecs (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lightspecs. Goodposts (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightspecs, Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks is a completely unnecessary and crufty article. You are welcome to create a similar trashcan for this article; at least that would prevent this current article from being bloated with people saying things that don't matter. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be perfectly frank, I haven't yet heard of a convention that limits the international reactions to a given event. If there's global outcry for or against a given event, the reader should know about it. I think we should only exclude political statements that don't address the issue, as I've noted above. If there are so many reactions that the article becomes too long or hard to read, they should instead be moved to their own page "International reactions to X", instead of being deleted. Goodposts (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodposts, that you haven't heard of that convention isn't surprising, given that you have only 820 edits here. "Global outcry" doesn't have to be proven by a list of flags and boilerplate responses. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Ah, the bogstandard snob reply, alluding to edit counters as a measure of correctness. Classy. And now to actually address the point - there are many, many articles, which list global reactions. Besides the ones that Lightspecs pointed out, there are very recent examples, such as Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. If you wish to condense the information that we have currently presented in this way, please feel free to create a color-coded world map, which would allow for the information to be conveyed in a more text-efficient way. Goodposts (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if experience matters. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've once again not presented a logical argument. Have a nice day. Goodposts (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to invasion

it's not POV to say 'invasion' - or should we then change "US invasion of iraq"?Vhstef (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources primarily refer to the present assault as a TSK offensive, whereas reliable souces primarily refer to the first stage of the Iraq War as an invasion. -Thespündragon 02:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it would necessarily be inappropriate to dub it an "Invasion", since it represents a military offensive, in which military forces are under taking offensive maneuvers from one nation's territory into another. There are a good few sources that dub the operation an "invasion". The only difference between this and Iraq is that in Iraq the offensive was against the Iraqi Government, while as in this case it targets a proto-state established within another nation's territory. With that said, considering that the Syrian Government has vehemently opposed the operation, I can still be deemed an invasion. But I think that the semantic differences between "offensive" and "invasion" aren't really significant enough to warrant a lot of drama. Goodposts (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invasion. It meets the defintion of an INVASION. The Turkish army has violated Syria's soveriegnity and has trepassed and invaded. Damascus did not invite Turkey's military into Northern Syria and has in fact roundly condmened the Turkish military operation as an invasion. It is very silly to not use the term invasion and instead use operation, which is an attempt at legimitizing Turkey's aggression. User178198273998166172 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fetishize the "sovereignty" of a military dictatorship which lost control over huge swaths of the area it claims jurisdiction over. Plus, we will have to go by the sources. Du moment that the sources call it an invasion, you can bring this back up again. "Operation" doesn't legitimize--though calling the article by its "official" Turkish name is. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "fetishizing" anything. Form of government and your personal opinion aside, the Syrian Government is officially recognized by the UN (and most of the world's nations, even if they oppose Assad) as the only government of the soverign UN-member state of Syria. The fact that it has lost control over parts of it's territory doesn't mean that it has lost it's soverignty entirely. If that were the case then Ukraine, Serbia, Somalia, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Libya and many other nations would be considered "not soverign". There are several sources which dub it an "invasion". Furthermore, going by your logic - why shouldn't we call it by it's SDF-defined name then? Answer - because going by one of the belligerent party's names shows a POV in favour of that party vis-a-vis the other. Wikipedia's job isn't to determine which party get's to be the "official" coiner of the operation, merely to describe it's meaning. Goodposts (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the existing sources disagree, with reliable sources existing both calling it an invasion [3][4][5][6] and others you've noted calling it an offensive. Reyne2 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which symbol should be used to represent Rojava?

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)[reply]

The flag used to represent the entity(flag with seal) should be used, not the flag used to represent the political alliance governing it(tricolor). It is valid to use the TEV-DEM flag to represent the Administration(DFNS->NES) in infoboxes on events prior to late 2018, as the Administration had no official symbols. While the flag itself is not strictly official, it is used in official settings to represent the administration, and uses the Administration's official emblem. The flag of TEV-DEM is only ever used to represent TEV-DEM. -Thespündragon 01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After finding this graphic (that you created), I understand what you're saying now. If the TEV-DEM flag is used at all, it would make more sense to have it next to the YPG flag.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve generally seen the tricolor used to represent Rojava, but it’s been awhile since I’ve viewed a Rojava-related article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that the best place to put the yellow-red-green flag is alongside the flags of the military wings (the YPG and YPJ). Hopefully this change wasn't inaccurate.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was undone almost immediately, but I thought it would be useful.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Rojava, the red-yellow-green tricolor is a very widely-used symbol, appearing pretty much everywhere in NES-held territory, although if we have to be technical, it is intended to represent the ruling coalition and not the NES as a whole. The NES doesn't officially have a flag. It sometimes uses it's emblem superimposed on a white background as a flag, and sometimes uses the flag of the Syrian Democratic Forces. With that said, the red-yellow-green tricolor is definitely a symbol very closely associated to Rojava and I don't think that it would be incorrect to use it per se. I do have to note however, that some pro-KDP groups in Rojava do not identify with that flag and instead use the Iraqi Kurdistan flag. Goodposts (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vatan Partisi is leftist?

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)[reply]

I removed the comment, as it is a Twitter comment by an insignificant political party, that is not referenced by any news articles. -Thespündragon 01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really a party to the offensive, but to answer the question - Vatan Partisi is definitely a left-wing political party, it was even strongly influenced by Maoism until recently, but has now adopted a more left-wing nationalist philosophy. Goodposts (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in lede being reverted

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

  1. ^ "After US green light, Turkey prepares military operation in Syria". Arab News. 7 October 2019.
  2. ^ "Turkey to Launch Military Operation in Syria Ahead of US Withdrawal". Al Bawaba.

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)[reply]

Ok let me start by saying I was not aware that there was a 1RR on this article, I don't think I've broken it but if I have I won't from now on. And the reason I changed this statement is because it is extremely ambiguous. What does that sentence even mean? Seems like a POV attack placed right on to the lede. I first removed it fully, someone re added it, than I moved it to background section and added more details, someone fully reverted me once again. Now I've added more detail to it in the lede to fix the ambiguity and I hope no one fully reverts me once again and compromises. A4516416 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other interpretations there are than the most literal one: Erdoğan believes that the demographic makeup in that part of Syria isn't how it should be, and this military operation is an attempt at changing that. In any case, that's incredibly significant, and worth putting in the lede. I would like to again remind you of the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. "Bold" refers to the change that you boldly added yourself, "Revert" refers to another editor reverting back to the status quo, and "Discuss" obviously refers to that it should be talked through on the talk page. Your idea of "compromise" appears to be adding more bold changes to the disputed content without consulting anyone to see if your "compromise" is in fact an agreeable solution. If you have an idea for how that sentence should look, put it here, not on the article itself. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK so I have never actually made the same edit two times. And Vanilla Wizard has probably broken 1RR in this article over 3 times. He keeps reverting the sourced material I'm adding and does not want anything that I am adding into the article. The change I want to add is more definition into baseless ethnic cleansing accusation in the source that quotes a Saudi website. The change I want to make is, adding more definition to the statement in the LEDE, that says. "According to a spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the operation is intended to "correct the demographics" of northern Syria." And the correct demographics section has a link that links to the page ethnic cleansing. If this is not POV and Original research I don't know what is. A4516416 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR discussion

@Vanilla Wizard and A4516316: Both of you have violated WP:1RR (Vanilla Wizard 1, Vanilla Wizard 2, Vanilla Wizard 3, Vanilla Wizard 4, A4516316 1, A4516316 2, A4516316 3, A4516316 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)[reply]

@MarkH21: Can I add additional material after that section at least? Or would that also violate 1RR? A4516416 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @A4516316: Read the wording at WP:3RR, particularly the part about 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)[reply]
You can add material that does not 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)[reply]
I am cool. I haven't violated 3RR btw, though Vanilla has... A4516416 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that crossed the line and I'm deeply disappointed in myself for that. I thought taking it to talk was the right thing, but I obviously shouldn't be editing this page, or - at the very least - letting myself impulsively respond. I should have just asked for a third party to handle it before it got as messy as it did. I think the best option would be for me to take a self-imposed WikiBreak right about now.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 07:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanilla Wizard: Taking it to talk was the right thing. Reverting afterwards repeatedly in the name of BRD wasn't. I think that would be a good idea. Kudos for recognizing that. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicted a few times. I'm making this side discussion into a subsection so as to not totally derail the thread above about the actual content. To be quite clear, it is a violation of the special community sanction WP:GS/ISIL to make two reverts to the same article within a 24 hour period, regardless of whether those are to the same or different parts of the article, or whether they are or are not exactly the same diff, or whether you use the Undo or Rollback tool or neither one. It's also not a competition for who reverts the most. I consider A4516416's edit, which partially reverted this one, to be a 1RR violation, as is Vanilla Wizard's. It looks like everyone's ready to cool it for a little while, I'd appreciate it if that could happen. The other option is for people to start getting blocked. ST47 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, @A4516416:, I've never been proven wrong quite so quickly. ST47 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rojava" is a fake name

"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)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: - please discuss at #Name of the article. No more new sections on naming please. starship.paint (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not constructive. Rojava has been in use by Wikipedia as well as Western media for years now. It is the name given to a de facto state that has been in operation for years, so yes, it is as "real" as any other imagined community state entity.--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Supreme Deliciousness. Again, the adoption of the word "Rojava" is exclusive to pro-YPG/PKK sources (Rudaw, ARA news, Kurdistan 24). Most international media do not refer to this area as "Rojava". This is no different from any other area in Syria, which is called by the name of the war belligerent occupying it. A handful of users here insist on inventing names for this area and/or adopting made-up propaganda names such as rojava. How can the name apply to three enclaves not exceeding 5% of Syria's territory back in 2015 and apply the same name to an area covering 30% of Syria, with a majority of non-Kurdish residents, not now and never in the past? Here is a few examples from respected sources:

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)[reply]

Flag salad

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)[reply]

60,000 People fled

"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.


  • Also this source is given for 60,000 Syrians fleeing however the article translates:*

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."


  • No where does it mention Syrians fleeing. It should be removed as a source.*

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)[reply]

Bold splitoff

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)[reply]

You have a point, I mostly did this to preempt the deletion war that appeared to be brewing. I agree entirely that an abbreviated section containing the key and directly involved players is due. The point of the splitoff was to maintain the full list of reactions, as was done, for example in Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodposts personally I agree with this-- we should have an abbreviated section for reactions here summarizing major points, of about 5 paras, I think.--Calthinus (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus Agree my point exactly! We can keep the reactions of those directly involved, as well as world powers in a summarized statement in this article, then keep all the rest in the other. Good compromise between information and readability imho. Goodposts (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not a live new feed

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)[reply]

We have always, for the past seven years, provided live updates as you put it regarding the capture of territory or casualties sustained during an offensive or a battle in the Syrian war. We also did the same thing during the previous two Turkish offensives into Syria. So there is no reason not to do so now as well. Also, the operation may last for weeks or months and leaving out this kind of info during that time would not be correct in regards to the readers. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs do not make a right. We are not a news paper we are an encyclopedia (see wp:notnews), and we want the most accurate information we can. By its nature any breaking news may not be accurate. All this does is make work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually not just "two wrongs". Like I said, we have done it for virtually all offensive and battle articles of the Syrian war since its start (which there are a few hundred). The two previous Turkish offensives were only small examples. Due to the rapidly changing events we have the Wikipedia "current" banner which conveys to our readers "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page." And there are editors (like myself) who have taken it upon themselves to keep the article up-to-date. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK 3, 12, 2786 wrongs do not make a right. It does not matter how many times this has been done, it is not how it is supposed to be done. All this does is mean we have to watch every news feed so as to make sure that if they capture more villages or lose some our article reflects the latest claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia is not a newsdesk, there is no reason to delay the addition of relevant information, so long as it is properly sourced. As EkoGraf stated, we have done this on articles pertaining to the Syrian Civil War for years now. Information will sometimes get debunked, but waiting until the very end of an event would lead Wikipedia to be completely out of date. For example, if we had waited until the end of the recent government offensive in Northwestern Syria, we would have had to delay the article by over 5 months. A lot of events having to do with the civil war are long and protracted, so waiting until they are finished to write about them would only harm the article's relevance. Goodposts (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles do not have to have contemporary relevance (after all out article on battle of Waterloo is hardly contemporary). They should have the best information we can provide, and something that in 5 minutes time could be out of date does not (to my mind) fulfill that role. Also see the thread below, any live update (I recall this form the Istanbul night club shooting) is always going to be riddled with misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As if to make my point [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to update the article with information that "could be out of date in 5 minutes", but the fact of the matter is wikipedians want to read about the topic on Wikipedia. The Peace at Home Council article was created during the very early stages of the 2016 Turkish Coup Détat attempt, at a time when both the composition of the 'council' and the extent to which it controlled the country were entirely unknown. Initially, the article had very little actual meat to it. Yet, with the effort of Wikipedians, it was greatly improved. I believe that what we have here today is a much superior version to what was done back then (and in similar articles, too!). So let's just agree on standards of quality and get to editing. Goodposts (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They want accurate information, not vague and or of date information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish civilian deaths

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)[reply]

Did you bother to read the messages at the top of this Talk Page before you posted? The article is based on news reports from Reliable Sources. I think you need to take a long mudbath in the Wiki policies and guidelines. 50.111.3.59 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&oldid=920573233"