Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Active discussions
  (Redirected from Talk:2019 Rojava offensive)

Party Leader/PresidentEdit

Re: this edit of yours. Later an advisor to leader of AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Yasin Aktay, said there could be conflict between the two armies, if the Syrian government tries to enter northeastern Syria.[1] Please explain the difference since Recep Erdogan is both President and Party Leader. You stated in your edit summary that Yasin Aktay was advisor to the Party Leader and that I should learn the difference. The Party leader and the President is one and the same,advice to the Party leader is thus advice to the President.Oldperson (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, as an advisor to Party leader, which is Erdogan, I agree, Yasin Aktay is pretty much irrelevant. Erdogan has tens of advisors both as party leader, as president. It's up to you. He doesn't advise on Turkey's politics, only party policy. It's like putting Salih Muslim's statement to this article. He's pretty much irrelevant too. Does he even has an influence in PYD? Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes Yasin's words as advisor to the AKP's party leader Erdogan is quite irrelevant, that is if the same party leader wasn't also President of Turkey. His statement regarding this matter is FAR from irrelevant. No, Salih Muslim is not irrelevant too, as former leader of the PYD his statements still hold some weight. Sisuvia (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
He has literally ZERO influence over PYD policies. Beshogur (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


Removing and rewriting the numbered list under Background → Turkish MotivesEdit

Should we not rewrite the excessive numbered list into a paragraph or two? (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I find that section to be cluttered, so I agree. It's largely undue to put a large list of talking points with all the specifics/arguments from a primary source, while all that can be condensed and paraphrased into a smaller paragraph. In another matter, I think the table in that section (the relevant bits thereof) should be incorporated into the running text. --Cold Season (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Rojava, not Autonomous Administration of North and East SyriaEdit

@SharabSalam: Per Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME which you (ironically) cited in your revert of my edit, the infobox should state Rojava and not Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria regardless of what the sources say. This is the same reason why Rojava is named Rojava and not Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and other pages related to it are currently undergoing a move to Rojava from North and East Syria and a variety of other names for the autonomous region. Kindly revert your edit. Sisuvia (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC) (oops)

Your ping didn't work because you didn't sign your comment. Anyway, the COMMONNAME policy is about titles, I didn't cite it, I don't know what are you talking about. I said the cited source says Northeastern Syria and doesn't mention Rojava. We wouldn't change all of the Northeast Syria to Rojava because of the title policy.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The article for the NES is called Rojava, and all articles about the NES are currently under discussion to be altered to use the name Rojava. When that happens, the NES will be referred to as Rojava in those articles. Given that, it would not make very much sense, if any to continue to refer to the NES in this article with it's official name, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, regardless if the sources in this article refer to the region by that name. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most articles that are cited here refer to to the region simply as 'northeastern Syria' or some other vague term. However, we do not refer to the NES by those terms, do we? Sisuvia (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
No we should use what sources use. Do you have a source that uses Rojava in this context? Also Rojava was also the name of the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" so it wouldn't be clear which one you are referring to in the article. Indeed the vague term is Rojava.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You're doing an extraordinarily poor job at trying to spin the argument. Rojava, Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and other terms used by mainstream media to refer to the autonomous region, refer to the same thing shockingly enough. Other Wikipedia articles related to Rojava such as the main article itself call the polity Rojava. Ergo, it would simply make more sense to then alter this article so to say 'Rojava' instead of 'Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria'. Democratic Federation of Northern Syria also refers to the same autonomous region, it's simply an old name so uh . . . try again? Sisuvia (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Northern Syria is very much different from North and East Syria. I don't know why I should try again. You are totally out of arguments and only doing personal attacks.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've launched exactly 0 personal attacks, but if that's the narrative you want to go with, you are free to do so. Yes, Northern Syria as a geographical region is very different from North and East Syria, one of multiple names for Rojava as a political entity. However, the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria are essentially the same thing, the only differences between them being the content of their constitution and their official names, among other minuscule and irrelevant matters. Sisuvia (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yea. So we except the reader to understand which one we are referring to? Are we referring to the Northern Syria or North and East Syria? Since you admitted that there has been a change so we can't simply use Rojava in a vague context that doesn't explain which one we are referring to. And the source itself doesn't mention Rojava.
For the civility issue with your comments you said:You're doing an extraordinarily poor job... Accusing me of unfounded accusations. The PA policy is clear that you should comment on the content not the editor..
Thanks!.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Stating that you're doing an extraordinarily poor job at attempting to spin the argument isn't a personal attack, although I'd welcome another's input on that. Yes, we do expect the reader to know "which one" we're referring to because Rojava is the single most common name for the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, that is why Rojava remains the name of the autonomous administration. There is a clear distinction between Rojava Kurdistan, the geographical region, and the Rojava that refers to the autonomous administration. If there was any actual concern about readers getting confused Rojava wouldn't be named Rojava. Using the term Rojava in this context is not at all vague. Stating that you were doing an extraordinarily poor job at trying to spin the argument is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are attacks "on an arguer that brings the individuals's personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question." I don't believe any of those descriptors fit what I did. Sisuvia (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You are still accusing me of bad faith which is making me want to report this issue to WP:ANI. Stop the personal attacks and learn how to discuss things with civility. Secondly, no, the Northern Syria is old establishment and we don't expect the reader to know which one we are referring to especially that Rojava as a region is really small comparing to Rojava a non-official name which was used as an official name for northern Syria.-SharabSalam (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't believe holding the belief that certain individuals are acting in bad faith is against Wikipedia rules, but if I'm mistaken in regards to that you're free to prove me wrong. Secondly, you're the only individual here that believes so, at least to my knowledge. The Interim Transitional Administration, Democratic Federation of Rojava – Northern Syria, Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and lastly Rojava (independently) all refer to the SAME autonomous administrative region that is located in northern and eastern parts of Syria. That is an established fact. The different names mean absolutely nothing. It is still the same administration and led by the same coalition of political parties, TEV-DEM. There are NUMEROUS countries in the world which have changed their names before, that does not make them different countries. Sisuvia (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

you are still accusing me of bad faith and you still don't see this as a personal attack.. Let me make it simple to you, Rojava is a small region in northern Syria. The Northern Syria federation called itself rejava then it changed it's name to Northern Syria. A new establishment called North and East Syria was established and it was wrongly called by the former name of Northern Syria, Rojava. Now when we say Rojava, the reader wouldn't know what are we talking about. Also most of the sources in this article use Northeast Syria the official name instead of the wrong name.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not I'm accusing you of bad faith is not the central point to this dispute. It is clear that despite you yourself stating that you understood what Applodion said in Talk:Rojava, you don't. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES) is not wrongly called Rojava. (It's just 'Rojava' by the way, not Northern Syria, Rojava.) That is an opinion that only you and a handful of other editors hold. I'm not sure how many times I have to reiterate this, but the name Rojava is the single most common name used to refer to the NES, that's why it's used on Rojava and is going to be used on all other pages related to it. Your point that the reader wouldn't know whether we were talking about Rojava as in the NES (and by NES, I mean all incarnations of it, be it the Interim Transitional Administration, Democratic Federation of Rojava - Northern Syria or Democratic Federation of Northern Syria) is absolutely nonsensical because readers are not as you would seemingly assume them to be, illiterate. There is only ONE ARTICLE titled Rojava, and that is the article for the Autonomous Administration. Sisuvia (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Support using Rojava - It's not a local consensus, and it's not a shaky consensus. Another requested move just closed with a consensus that all articles relating to the AANES/NES should use "Rojava." This includes Symbols of Rojava, Foreign relations of Rojava, Constitution of Rojava, List of political parties in Rojava, Regions of Rojava, etcetera. Not one, not two, but three formal requested moves this year found and reaffirmed that there is no consensus to call it the AANES/NES, but there is a reaffirmed consensus to call it Rojava because Rojava is the WP:COMMONNAME. The last four out of four relevant move discussions found the same consensus that Rojava is the common name. The common name is decided by the use of reliable sources. The idea that the common name for the same entity can switch from context to context - that it's possible for the entity to be so widely known as Rojava that there's a consensus to use that name as the title of the article, yet when talking specifically about an event relating to the entity, that we should call it the AANES - is absolutely nonsensical. There's not a "local common name." Furthermore, that's not even true. Rojava is being used more than "Autonomous Administration of North And East Syria" with regards to this event. Because of course it is. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I couldn't even find one source that called it the "Autonomous Administration of North And East Syria" when I looked for it, but I found that even random local news outlets in America use Rojava. The Guardian via MSN: "Rojava", LAist (Los Angeles news): "Rojava", openDemocracy (UK): "Rojava", Jacobin: "Rojava", Scoop (New Zealand): "Rojava", WKTV (Local news in New York): "Rojava", etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think there's any argument to continue calling this entity the AANES/NES. If there was any genuine concern that "local common names" are a real thing and that we should just name the entity based on how mainstream sources tend to refer to them, we'd just call them "Kurds" because that's what mainstream American newspapers tend to do. Rojava is the common name, including when discussing this event. We settled this problem four times already. This shouldn't still be an issue.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanilla Wizard, the source of the time doesnt mention Rojava even once. The Rojava in the infobox can imply multiple entities, the Democratic fedaration of Northern Syria or Rojava as a small region etc. --SharabSalam (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, If you're arguing that the term Rojava doesn't refer to the entity, try arguing that at Talk:Rojava, not here. You already tried making that argument there, and the consensus has consistently not been in your favor. If you're trying to argue that the sources don't mention Rojava, I just gave you a long list of sources that use "Rojava" in the headlines. Now I'd like a list of sources that demonstrate that the common name is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" when referring to this event, because in your arguments you make a distinction and suggest that it's a "local" common name for this article.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard, I think you are totally unaware of what this discussion is about. It is not about the commonname or the title, which I totally I agree with, is about what sources next to the item in the infobox say, the time doesnt even mention Rojava as Rojava could be the small Kurdish region or the AANES etc. We use what relevant sources say per WP:SYNTH and the other also says in the first paragraph "the Kurdish-led administration of northeast Syria said..".--SharabSalam (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It is about what name we use in the text of the article (including the infobox), yes. This is to be determined by which name is used more often in reliable sources, otherwise known as the common name. I have absolutely no idea why you keep bringing up Time Magazine. Just because Time Magazine calls them the Kurds doesn't mean that "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" should be used instead of "Rojava." I've provided you with a list of sources that show that the entity is referred to - in the context of this event - as Rojava. You oppose this without offering proposal of your own, which means that you're arguing that it's better to use the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" name. You've provided no rationale for doing so other than linking to a Time Magazine article which doesn't even use the AANES name.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard, the sources that are used in the infobox are for being a belligerent and they both use the name AANES.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
And the list of sources I've provided that use "Rojava" already outnumber the two in the infobox, and I was only adding ones with the name in the headlines for your convenience. Combine that with the fact that we've had four discussions - two very recent - that show that the AANES name doesn't have a consensus and the "Rojava" name does, and it's obvious which name 1) is being used by reliable sources 2) is agreed to be used by enwiki editors  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard, the sources you brought are not relevant sources to the content of this article. Please read WP:SNYTH and WP:OR.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, they're literally about the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. It doesn't get any more relevant than that. How is a headline like "Kurds March Against Turkish Invasion of Rojava" or "Europe could do more to stop the Turkish invasion of Rojava" too off-topic? I've noticed that you've changed your argument with every passing post. First it was that the common name matters, but that the common name wasn't Rojava. Then you asked for someone to show sources demonstrating that it is being used in the context of this event. Then I did so, and you switched to arguing that the common name doesn't matter at all because we're not discussing the title of the article. Then you switched to arguing that the AANES name should stay because it's being used by "the time." Then you changed the core of your argument again by dismissing the sources I've provided (which are about the event and use the name Rojava in the headlines) as being "original research." What's going on? It seems that every time your concerns are met, you switch your concerns.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanilla Wizard, you noticed what? Lol. I have never changed any of what I said. I never cited COMMONNAME. You're the one who is talking about the COMMONNAME which is totally irrelevant to what I am saying. It's like you are talking about yourself. I have said again and again that the relevant sources next to the item in the infobox say Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Full stop. Please show me where I cited COMMONNAME or stop making things up to cover up your failure of providing relevant sources to the infobox section.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

After re-reviewing your comments (both from our conversation and from your dialogue with Sisuvia) I see where the confusion stemmed from. It's that you're making contradictory statements, whether intentionally or not. You're simultaneously arguing that it does and does not matter whether or not the name is what reliable sources are using, even though that's what it means to be the common name. In other words, you are making the argument that we should use the common name according to sources, but not by name. You're arguing for the essence of the policy, while also dismissing the policy as being irrelevant. When it is argued that Rojava is the common name because sources are using it, you say that it's irrelevant and the common name doesn't matter. You simultaneously say that the sources are bad ones (without explaining how or why) and that the sources do matter. I've said it before and I've said it again. This article is about the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, and we're talking about whether or not to use the name Rojava. The sources that I've linked to are literally about the Turkish offensive and use the name Rojava. Explain to me how they're not relevant, then. You can tell me that I've "failed" all that you want, but you haven't even attempted to articulate how.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard, COMMONNAME is not relevant because it is about article titles not the content. The content in Rojava mentions Autonomous administration of North and East Syria more than Rojava that's because the sources that are used there use the term AANES. The content here is just the same, we have to use the same term that the sources used. Besides, the term Rojava is ambiguous in this context and could mean the old establishment of The democratic federation of Northern Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
We're going around in circles. I found more sources about this specific event that use the name Rojava than you found sources that use the AANES name. If you agree that we should be using the name that sources use when describing this event, then you should join me in agreeing that more reliable sources are, when talking specifically about this event, using the Rojava name. You said earlier that the sources I provided are irrelevant. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how they're irrelevant, because they are specifically about this offensive. The three of us (you, Sisuvia, and I) have already created an overwhelmingly long thread by unproductively saying the same things over and over again, so I think that the best option would be to start fresh, make a formal request for comment, and let uninvolved editors handle it from here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was "The YPJ claimed that Turkish backed militias where attempting to reach the M4 Highway. " was removedEdit

The YPJ uses Twitter as for official press statements and the following tweet translated away from Kurmanji reads the following.

'The gangs (FSA) attempted to reach the international highway between Ayn Issa and Kobani just an hour ago."

I specifically put the "YPJ claimed" as it was not official as to if it is true. I partially suspect that maybe somebody couldn't read Kurmanji so it looked like gibberish to them. I can't read Kurmanji but there is something called google translate can somebody tell me why this was removed and if can i add it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing was stated so i am going to add it back. However randomly is deleting my edits without giving a reason needs to stop, if there is a reason for deleting, delete it and give a reason but if not and the source is correct don't touch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 19:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Split proposedEdit

I propose splitting the timeline section into a new article. Having this page feature headers of every date since the beginning of the offensive is not clean for the article. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I like this article as it goes into detail on everything but it is difficult for the average reader to get a general idea what is going, I propose a new section called: "Timeline of Turkish Offensive into North-Eastern Syria" and then taking the large events and simply putting into the main article and removing all the dates and replacing them with important thing that have occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 17:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree I think the daily events should be cleaned up instead of splitting to a new article. Beshogur (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree, we really do not need a day by day blow by blow account, we need an overview.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it should rather be cleaned up and revised to an overview structure. It is feasible, as there are identifiable themes, of which the information is currently scattered throughout the text, at every stage of the conflict. --Cold Season (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Deaths can be taken out of the daily update.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I still think all the work which was put into should be added into a new article not to waste all the work which was put in to give a detailed account, besides some readers may want a more in depth account similar to reactions. --Vallee01 —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Strong oppose. The article should be rewritten into a more cohesive article format. No split is needed once this is done and it will be done when some time has passed. (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Strong agree. The Syrian civil war has a general detailed description and generalized one, i also agree that a more cohesive article should be written but i also believe that the more detailed sections should be added to new article. Having timelines like this occur when a topic is very large and requires more information then the average reader should be expected to read however a more in depth section should be maintained in a separate article.


As fighting (and territorial changes) are still going on why is the map not up to date?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think because Nate Hooper hasn't been updating it. (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Then it is not longer relevant or reflects the current situation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The map is also way off, no idea why the territory is implied to be taken off by Assad. It's joint occupied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, if its not solely Turkish controlled it should be marked as such.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Christ, and in a case of history repeating itself [[8]] this map bears no relation to ours.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven Map has't been updated since 31 Oct cause there haven't been any changes since then. As for incorrect portrayal, which parts do you think are incorrect? KasimMejia (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
"The SDF claims it has made advances into the villages of Mahmudiya and Khirbet Jammu", reads like a geographical change to me, As to which parts I think are incorrect, I do not think any are incorrect (I do not have access to the information needed to draw such a conclusion) I said it does not match what a third party source says (see wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a minor change and a non 3rd party change to me. Which third party source does not match our map? KasimMejia (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Errr the one I link to above?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a map there, are you referring to this [9]? KasimMejia (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the map in an article dated 9 Nov 2019.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That map is totally out of date, doesn't match any report by SOHR (Manajir, Tal Tamr, Ain Issa for example), looks like the map at the 5th day of the offensive. KasimMejia (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant, its an RS and its map does not match ours (nor does anyone elses match anyone elses). So do we have an authoritative source for the current situation on the ground?Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source Al Jazeera has been very critical of the offensive. And you're POV pushing, SOHR is much more detailed RS who stated every town and village captured. Go ahead and keep POV pushing if you want to display an incorrect map, doubt anyone will support this. KasimMejia (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not say I want to display this map, I am saying we should not be using a map that appears to be out of date. We haves a an RS saying that at least some villages have been taken by the SDF in the last couple of days.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Villages in question Dawdi, Azizah, al-Jamilyah and three other villages in the northern al-Hasakah countryside according to [[10]]. can someone check if SOHR did indeed claim this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
You started to circle this discussion, I already answered this saying 3 villages is not a noticeable change, probably won't been seen on a map. Go ahead and update it if you want I don't oppose it if its by a RS, you said SDF claimed it before. KasimMejia (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh and Masdar is the official propaganda outlet of the Syrian Gov. It's anything but RS, you must be new with the RS regarding Syrian Civil War. KasimMejia (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Which I why I asked for the SOHR to be checked. And I would point out that until this point every village taken was deemed important enough for a live update of the infox box.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I will add that a claim that 6 villages have been recaptures means the lower limit of Turkish captures in 62. As the upper limit is sourced to a biased source I see no reason why the lower limit should not be as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
With regards to map, no there is constant fighting, i am currently working on new dates however here are just some sources on changing lines. These are just a few of the sources they are many more. Vallee01 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Title needs to be changed. It is a Syrian national army offensive, not a "Turkish offensive"Edit

This operation was conducted by the Syrian national army (SNA) with backing from the Turkish military who provided support with artillery and airstrikes. There are very few Turkish soliders on the ground, and they not are not engaged in direct combat. Basically the same situation as the other operations they did against isis and the sdf/ypg/pkk (not "the Kurds" as the western media claims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenitol (talkcontribs) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea no it is Turkish not FSA without Turkey this offensive would not happen, it would literally be impossible it will remain the same. Vallee01 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's policy, we go per the common name, and almost everyone is referring to this as the "Turkish offensive". EkoGraf (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The title should use a mention regarding rebels. It is not a sole Turkish offensive, %90 of the casualties are Syrian-Arab, Rebels. Maybe it could be "2019 Turkish-led rebel offensive into north-eastern Syria" KasimMejia (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Without Turkey this offensive would never take place the Bay of Pigs invasion is listed as an invasion by the US even though all casualties where Cubans because it was led by the US, trained by the US and supported by the US. Vallee01 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The TFSA is not a country, and makes no decisions themselves. It is basically a militia paid, supported and armed by Turkey. They are not an independent force, they are basically a turkish milita proxy force. They are not capable of invading a country by themselves, and have only ever acted as part of Turkish wider offensives. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Casualties as part of Operation Olive BranchEdit

Hi, Applodion. I was discussing this with EkoGraf at my talk page. It should be discussed here from now on. I removed the note about OP OB casualties due to being a separate operation and per WP:CONSISTENCY, since SDF casualties as part of that OP are not included. Lets discuss. KasimMejia (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Having read your conversation with EkoGraf, I generally agreed with the latter's points. I do not think that WP:CONSISTENCY is an issue here; it is a matter of clarification, as some media falsely reported two deaths for this operation, even though they had to be attributed to OB. I simply think that the note helps people and explains why the death toll might appear to be off. Applodion (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
What's the point of writing casualties as part of another operation into this operation in the first place? POV pushing to bloat Turkish casualties? KasimMejia (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
What? No. Why would you think that? It is a simple clarification of misinformation that was spread in news media. In fact, the note's purpose is actually to display how the Turkish death toll during this operation was slightly inflated. Applodion (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean what's the point of writing those 2 into casualties, instead of subtracting 2 from the reported number. KasimMejia (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Because people might be confused why 2 deaths are just subtraced? The note is supposed to inform people why this change was made in the first place. Unless it is there, people might think it is a mere typing mistake. Applodion (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest adding an in-code comment, saying "SOHR dead toll counts 2 casualties as part of OP OB, subtract two from the casualties while updating". This will take out the unnecessary note from the infobox and make it better for the readers. Will also correctly list casualties as part of different OP's. KasimMejia (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Applodion, as per my earlier comments, the note clarifies the inconsistency between the figure we provide for our readers (excluding the 2 OB deaths) and the one provided by media outlets (incorrectly adding up the 2 OB deaths), so the readers would understand the discrepancy. Also, you are accusing a fellow editor of POV pushing again. Please stick to WP:GOODFAITH. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you both think of my latest suggestion in the previous comment about in code mention to subtract two? This could reduce space about unnecessary note in the infobox, Applodion EkoGraf. KasimMejia (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
That is not really an alternative because one could only read it while editing, yet the entire purpose of the note is to be read by everyone. Applodion (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2019Edit

2019 Turkish-led Rebel offensive into north-eastern Syria Withdrawn by requester. KasimMejia (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria2019 Turkish-led Rebel offensive into north-eastern Syria – A user, Yenitol has suggested in the talk page that the title lacks a mention regarding Rebel role in the offensive. He has a point, the Turkish sides casualties %95 Syrian-Arab Rebels, and %5 Turkish troops. This suggested name highlights that it is led and planned by Turkey while giving a mention to mass rebel participation in the offensive. KasimMejia (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure whether the rebel involvement in the offensive has to included in the title. One should not forget that the entire operation does serve Turkey's purpose, yet only marginally benefits the Syrian opposition. The rebel troops involved, though a large majority, act as Turkey's proxies for the offensive. Furthermore, "rebel" is a vague term - For example, some FSA units (nominally still anti-Assad rebels) are still fighting for the SDF. Even some anti-SDF rebel groups in Idlib are opposed to the operation because it weakens Idlib's defenses. Anyway, I think that more simple titles such as 2019 Turkish-led offensive into north-eastern Syria should be preferred. Applodion (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: Is this something new? No it isn't rebel offensive. The operation is launched by the Turkish military and Turkey is fighting on the ground as well. As it was by the other operations Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch, the article should have the name Operation Peace Spring. Beshogur (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: Without Turkey this offensive would never take place the Bay of Pigs invasion is listed as an invasion by the US even though all casualties where Cubans because it was led by the US, trained by the US and supported by the US, armed by the US and where acting in the interest of the US the same is true with Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: Even though the TFSA is a Syrian rebel group, the offensive is led by Turkey and as per WP:COMMONNAME we should stick with "Turkish offensive" since most call it that. EkoGraf (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Withdraw the request due to overwhelming opposition. KasimMejia (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why was IFB changed to Leftist Voulnteers?Edit

Many people in IFB aren't leftists so its inaccurate to call all people in IFB Leftists, moreover its like calling the YPG as "Kurdish Militants" its inaccurate i think it should be changed back. Vallee01 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The International Freedom Battalion is an umbrella armed organisation composed of left-wing groups, including Marxist-Leninists, socialists, anarchists. It is most certainly leftist. Likewise, the Antifascist International Tabur which is now called the People's Protection Units International is composed of leftist Westerners that adhere to aforementioned left-wing ideologies. Sisuvia (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The article International Freedom Battalion should be updated if that's the case. Also they shouldn't be on infobox then, but instead listed on Order of battle for the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The IFB article does, in fact, say that it is leftist and made up of leftist groups. -Thespündragon 02:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Although the IFB is mostly made of Leftists you don't need to be a leftist to be in the IFB, here is someone who was in the IFB and he is not a Leftist: moreover even if all of the IFB was Leftist (which it isn't) its inaccurate to call them "Leftist Volunteers" instead IFB, its like calling the YPG "Kurdish Militants" instead of "People Protection Units." Vallee01 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That individual was not in the IFB, he was in the YPG-International, which is a different organization. Disregarding this argument, I believe the change was made in order to include other leftist volunteers in other militias, though the referencing for leftist volunteers in other militias beiing in this offensive is poor. -Thespündragon 00:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why 18 November removed?Edit

Some is deleting my edits like they did with "YPJ claimed edit," the video in arabic translate to "Turkey get out Al-Bab" and there is video proof that someone was shot in the head so i am adding this section back. Unless someone forged a crowd getting together in Al-bab and then forged people being shot the video is authentic. Video: Nothing was stated re-adding it. Vallee01 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The map really needs to be updatedEdit

The current map is completely out of date here is roughly how the map should look something like tbis:

The SDF have slowly chipped away at the SNA controlled sections, and now control all of eastern Tal Abyad, update the map.

The live map on the website clearly shows Tell Abyad still under full control of Turkey and Turkish-aligned rebels. Sisuvia (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As does (then) the results and territorial changes section in the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That site is not a source. No such claims made by the SDF nor SNA Gal17928 (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want sources: These are all just some references, (yes some are biased yet they are still sources) i also have heard that the SOHR have a map of the Syrian civil war if so please send a link and please, and tell me what Map Infobox is the SOHR is also a reliable source so i am not sure if i should removed "According to SOHR". Vallee01 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of a protest again Turkey in al-Bab in this articleEdit

User Vallee01 states that the anti-Turkish protest in al-Bab should be included in the "Post-ceasefire" section of this article.[11] Despite al-Bab having no connection to the current operation area. Want to get some insight of users whether you Support or Oppose the inclusion of this, please leave a brief summary while giving an opinion. KasimMejia (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Support KasimMejia you yourself has included bombs that where detonated in Al-bab if Al-bab is unrelated as you state it should be removed right? Well no it shouldn't be removed because it is linked to the safe zone that Turkey wants to establish, just as protests in the Turkish-SNA occupied zones need to be included this is not something which should be debated. Anything that happens in the 30-km zone should be included and it absurd that in your attempt to spew pro-Turkish propaganda you deny basic facts.

  • Opposeand remove the rest, this is about a Specific theater.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well, looks like vallee01 is all alone on this despite personally attacking me on several occasions, he should see WP:GF, otherwise admin action might be necessary. KasimMejia (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia I am not personally attacking you but when i look at your edit history all of your edits, all of it is pro-Turkish and you have had issues with admins in the past with starting editing wars with people you disagree with such as me, you have also have had issues with being biased such as 2019 Israeli Strikes, however answer me this question, why do you think certain things that happen in Al-bab are worthy of inclusion but only things you think necessary, if al-bab is unrelated to the subject at hand using your logic you should thereby also remove the bombings in al-bab?. I am genuinely interested in knowing because you appear to be contradictory.

New casualtiesEdit

I have a question. Considering the fact that the main operation/offensive has ended and the result has been given as a Turkish victory, are we going to add new casualties? Yesterday night 2 Turkish soldiers were killed in a mortar attack near the Syrian border. Will this be added to this page or is there going to be a seperate article for those clashes? I think that it would make more sense to make a different one Gal17928 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree that "the main phase" has ended, it was a ceasefire not an armistice, and it does not really appear to be holding.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently fighting still remains and the SDF have just recaptured Sadda and Al-Kafifa, I think the reason for this is due to the ceasefire, but the ceasefire ended. I don't think there is any debate that the conflict counties, i am currently researching the events to get more dates and i have found a series of clashes, the offensive is ongoing and thereby it should be changed back. If someone disagrees with me that's fine but I don't understand how anyone could state this is not ongoing. If Turkish Victory is going to need to be included for whatever reason it should be changed to "Main combat phase: Turkish Victory" as that is accurate but saying the Turkey has won the conflict is just not true. Vallee01 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it accurate, how do we know it is "the main combat phase"? This "war" is far form over, and it is far to early to judge that the main phase might be. I have said it before and will say it again, until it is all over we do not know what the result is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why does it state "Turkish Victory" at the start of this page. Vallee01 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, I have argued long and hard about the results section.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Renaming to Operation Peace Spring?Edit

Operation Olive branch and Euphrate Shield go by their Turkish name shouldnt Operation Peace Spring go by the same? Qwerty3938 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Practically no source calls in "Operation Peace Spring," Operation Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch where both minor compared to current fighting. The fighting in Idlib wasn't called "Dawn of Idlib" even though the SAA called it that, its a mass over-generalization. Moreover this debate has already taken place with the ultimate conclusion that is should not be called peace spring. Vallee01 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't troll people please. Even Kremlin is calling it Operation Olive Branch.[1] Also minor fighting is over 3000 deaths on all sides? Beshogur (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Just because the Kremlin calls it Operation Peace Spring doesn't mean it should be called Operation Peace Spring on Wikipedia. WP:COMMON is a thing. Sisuvia (talk)
Yeah it's important that the main actor of this operation calls it by that name, and another important actor calling in too. Let's search it on google:
  • 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria 8,150,000 results
  • Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria 11,800,000 results
  • Turkish offensive into northern Syria 9,330,000 results
  • Operation Peace Spring 48,800,000 results
  • Turkish invasion of Syria 6,200,000 results
look WP:COMMON. Beshogur (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


The main articles are "Turkish invasion of Syria" Wikipedia doesn't want to call it an invasion not to make Turkish Sock Puppets mad. Calling it an offensive is already stretching it, the SDF never attacked Turkey and a war did not exist between the SDF or Turkey in North East Syria before hand, The Bay of Pigs invasion is an invasion even though almost all casualties where Cuban. Practically no source other then pro-Turkish media calls it "Operation Peace Spring". If Wikipedia was working off real WP:COMMON and definition instead of feelings of Turkish Alts, it would be called an invasion. Vallee01 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Be careful with your words, and see WP:DEMOCRACY Beshogur (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Striking through sock edit, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qqqsjdjsdj. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hawar News Agency used to cite the death of two Turkish soldiersEdit

Gal17928, Besides that it has a conflict of interest, according to our article in Wikipedia, "Hawar News serves as Rojava's de facto official news agency." That equals being a state-owned newspaper. I think we would need a reliable independent source to cite that two Turks were killed. In the meantime we should not say that two Turkish soldiers were killed using this source.-SharabSalam (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have found this source [12]. I think this source is better and much reliable so the Hawar news source is not needed.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that you are confused (?). Its not about two Turkish soldiers being killed but two SDF fighters being killed in the last 24 hours as per the source of ANHA/Hawar says. ANHA/Hawar has been used since the begining of this article to cite the per SDF casualties, not the Turkish one. They release each 24 hours a statement about the clashes and possible losses of their fighters. And as of 30 November, they announced that in the past 24 hours two of their fighers were killed (translated as martyred) and another two wounded. I think that there is something confusing going on here Gal17928 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Gal17928, ohhh I thought that it is saying two Turkish soldiers. Sorry.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2019Edit

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: not moved. There is no consensus to move at this time. Also, per Drmies: this move is borderline premature. Back in October, there was already consensus for moving to the current title (which I also closed) — a move request which involved far more extensive discussion, with many more participants. Please wait at least six 3 months before attempting to move the title again. El_C 14:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot how split the October move request was between the operation and descriptive titles. This means that this move request was not as premature as I originally estimated. As such, I am cutting down the duration for the next move to the standard three month only. El_C 15:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern SyriaOperation Peace Spring – If we make a quick research on Google, we see that

  • 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria 8,150,000 results
  • Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria 11,800,000 results
  • Turkish offensive into northern Syria 9,330,000 results
  • Operation Peace Spring 48,800,000 results
  • Turkish invasion of Syria 6,200,000 results

we get these results. According WP:COMMONNAME, we should move it to Operation Peace Spring. Turkey is the one who starts this operation, saying that "their opinion" is relevant is nothing but ridiculous. Russian Federation, another major actor of the war even calls it as Operation Peace Spring. Source[1] And United States; "Turkish side will pause Operation Peace Spring in order to allow for the withdrawal of YPG forces from the safe-zone for 120 hours," U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said.[2][3] Beside that. Other Turkish operations inside Syria were called with their own name;

Calling this offensive minor to these twos doesn't make it legitimate to give the offensive another name on Wikipedia.


Beshogur (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and as Beshogur said we have Operation Olive Branch Operation Euphrates Shield.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Google search results listed above are misleading if done without quotation marks since otherwise the results include hits with only parts of the search phrase (i.e. the later pages include hits for the words "Operation" and "Spring" without "Peace"). With quotation marks, hits must include the full phrase verbatim. However, you run into issues with alternative names. For instance,
    • "Operation Peace Spring" - 334,000 results
    • Variants of "Turkish invasion of Syria" - 345,200 results
      • "Turkish invasion of Syria" - 106,000 results
      • "Turkey's invasion of Syria" - 149,000 results
      • "Turkish invasion of northern Syria" - 44,500 results
      • "Turkey's invasion of northern Syria" - 45,700 results
In this case, what do you consider to be more common? The latter are clearly minor variants of the same name and collectively have more results while the former has the most results as a single full phrase. Google searches do not draw a clear conclusion here. An analysis of reliable sources (e.g. list out what is used by government sources, academic sources, the NYT, Reuters, Guardian, etc.) should determine the WP:COMMONNAME. — MarkH21talk 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Basically over 5 ground incursions happened since 2015, so those terms include all those years while Operation Peace Spring is a recent name. So what three major countries of the war are calling are unimportant? Beshogur (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I said that the Google searches are not really conclusive and the initial numbers are misleading. I didn’t say that the belligerent governments’ usage was unimportant at all. That’s why I gave what is used by government sources as something that should be part of the analysis instead of Google search numbers. — MarkH21talk 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
MarkH21, "Turkish invasion of Syria" results has many problems like the results could lead to Ottoman era invasion, secondly Turkey didnt actually invade the whole Syria. "Operation Peace Spring" seems undeniable the most commonly used term also in-line with other articles like Operation Olive Branch and Operation Euphrates Shield.-SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I agree with your first sentence. My point was to illustrate that Google search result numbers are misleading and should not really be used here. — MarkH21talk 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) updated (italics) 17:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Practically no source calls it "Operation Spring" except for Pro-Turkish media. As can be seen with "Operation Dawn of Idlib" the one who starts the operation does not mean they own the name. While the Turkish side is undeniably important to this article whats more important is what Internationally it is called and internationally it either called an Offensive or an Invasion. The scope of the fighting is far larger then an "Operation", and if Turkey does get to decide what everything is called then it shouldn't be ongoing Turkey states that fighting is not going on and "Destroyed Terrorist Threat."[1][2] This information should kill the proposal as fighting is most certainly still going on. Turkey does not get to own what people call the fighting. Vallee01 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What? Beshogur (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
List of Wikipedia's calling it with "Operation Peace Spring"
Arabic: ar:عملية نبع السلام
Azerbaijani: az:Sülh Bulağı əməliyyatı
South Azerbaijani: azb:باریش پیناری عملیاتی
Belarussian: be:Аперацыя «Крыніца міру»
Czech: cs:Operace Pramen míru
French: fr:Opération Source de paix
Armenian: hy:«Խաղաղության աղբյուր» ռազմագործողություն
Polish: pl:Operacja „Źródło pokoju”
Portuguese: pt:Operação Nascente de Paz
Romanian: ro:Operațiunea „Izvorul Păcii”
Russian: ru:Операция «Источник мира»
Slovak: sk:Operácia Prameň mieru
Serbian: sr:Операција Извор мира
Turkish: tr:Barış Pınarı Harekâtı
Vietnamese: vi:Chiến dịch Mạch nước Hòa bình
Lot of Wikipedia's calling it with its orginal name. Beshogur (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe this needs to be said, but please see WP:NOTSOURCE. You don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia to determine the common name. That's what reliable secondary sources are for.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am certain of being a sockpuppet because of knowledge of Wikipedia and yet being completely new, already knowing how to edit, not to mention the very first thing this account did was support something which the person should have no knowledge of, however this is not the place to be discussing this specifically. The majority of articles use "Turkish Offensive," the reason for remaining the name "Operation Peace Spring" is due to the fact that it was initially called "Operation Peace Spring" however was subsequently changed to "Turkish Offensive" due to it not encompassing the current conflict. moreover why should Dawn of Idlib be called an offensive and not this, there is a mass inconsistency when it comes to Wikipedia articles WP:COMMONNAME is a mess Syrian Civil War articles usually to remain neutral do are not called by the name of Operation, the scope of the fighting is a war not an Operation. I am going to do a report on how there are thousands of ways to put "Turkish Invasion" or "Turkish Offensive" while only one method to put "Operation Peace Spring" this is why it appears to be the more prevalent search result. Vallee01 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose How many requested move discussions has this article seen by now? The above comments in this thread show that variants of the current title outnumber the proposed title, so on COMMONNAME alone I oppose, but we've also had several recent consensuses that calling it "Operation Peace Spring" is far from neutral.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You are totally ignoring my first comment. I said that Russian Federation and United Stated used Operation Peace Spring as well. So can you tell me why other two operations, Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch are "neutral" and this not? If you remember, those names were changed later on. Beshogur (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Beshogur, please see the archive that Drmies provided below. Not only have I never argued that "Operation Olive Branch" is neutral, I've stated not long ago that my position is quite the opposite. From the archive: "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." This was my position a month ago when we had this exact same discussion (you were there, your !vote was the next one after mine), and this is still my position today. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What are you going to say both Russian Federation and United States using the name "Operation Peace Spring"? Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't believe it to be neutral - and that's not just my perspective, that's one of the key reasons why the consensus was not in favor of moving to Operation Peace Spring. I'll again ask that you see the archives, because we already had this discussion. As for the White House and Kremlin using Turkey's handpicked name, is that supposed to be a reason for moving it? That's not how naming policy works. We move based on reliable secondary sources, not based on what two governments who've struck deals with the Turkish government are doing. Is that supposed to be a reason to believe that it's a more neutral title? The situation got to where it is because the US gave the greenlight and the Russians negotiated with Erdogan, it's just bizarre to think that their use of Turkey's preferred language in official diplomatic dialogue is what should dictate what we do with the article. The current title is satisfactory. "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" is more descriptive, matches more reliable sources, meets Wikipedia naming policy, and doesn't use any POV language. That's everything I could ask for in a title about a controversial subject, and that's what we finally have after reaching a consensus one month ago. I don't think that we should change that simply because Trump and Putin said it.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 00:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:DEMOCRACY. Of course it should be used on Wikipedia, you think it's not neutral because you don't like it. This has nothing to do with liking it or not. It's the common name. Military operation: "A military operation is the coordinated military actions of a state, or a non-state actor, in response to a developing situation. These actions are designed as a military plan to resolve the situation in the state or actor's favor. Operations may be of a combat or non-combat nature and may be referred to by a code name for the purpose of national security." So what's countering the usage of Operation Peace Spring. Wikipedia doesn't give that name of course, it's obvious that the name was given by Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to invoke WP:DEMOCRACY, try explaining how anything I've said goes against said policy.The issue of whether the title is sufficiently neutral is a dispute that is resolved by reaching a consensus, and the consensus was that it is not. Instead of telling me that I just don't like it and taking a couple of sentences to dismiss everything I'm saying, try actually making an argument. I don't know why you quoted the Wiki page on military operations and italicized that operations may be referred to by code-names; all that demonstrates is that code-names exist, which is stating the obvious because we're discussing whether or not to use a code-name. You claimed that it was the common name for two reasons: 1) the GHITS you mentioned at the top 2) that more Wikipedias in other languages use the name you prefer. Your rationale there is wrong on both accounts. MarkH21 already demonstrated that your GHITS at the top are a problematic measurement because variations of the existing title are actually more prominent than the operational title, so your first point is wrong. The second point is wrong for two reasons: the first being that you don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, the second that it has to be the common name in English-language outlets. Operation Peace Spring is not the common name. The current title meets WP:TITLE far better than the proposed title for the following reasons which I've already described: 1) it's more descriptive and WP:PRECISE, it's unmistakable what the title is referring to, 2) it has a stronger case for being the WP:COMMONNAME among independent, reliable, English-language sources (when I search for news about "Operation Peace Spring" nearly all of the results are non-English outlets, but variations of "Turkish offensive", "Turkish military campaign", "Turkey's invasion", "Turkey's incursion", and "Turkish intervention" all come up when I just search for news about Turkey and Syria, all without any mention of "Operation Peace Spring") and 3) it unquestionably has no POV concerns. The only advantage I'll concede that the proposed title has is that it's shorter and therefore more concise, but the lack of precision in comparison undercuts said advantage. That's my rationale. You could keep telling me that I just don't like it in another 2-4 sentence reply, but I'd appreciate it greatly if you put in the same amount of effort explaining why or how I'm misguided if you're really trying in good faith to build a new consensus for a new title based on Wikipedia naming policy.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 12:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
So are you going to place a valid reason? I'm not asking your opinion. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

huge editEdit

Why was this done?Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


This operation is not ongoing. There are small clashes which don't change any result in the field. Similar to Idlib, which ended in August Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). Whoever calls this ongoing is doing it for their POV sake to avoid writing Turkish Victory into result. (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

On the 17th of October our article said there had been 4 Turks killed it now says, it now says 14. That looks like it is still ongoing to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The operation did end. The article is about the operation. Also it is mentioned that the clashes still continue despite the ceasefire agreement. There are lot of conflicts where skirmisher continue for years, while the war officialy did end. For example Nagorno Karabakh War, doesn't mean it's continuing. "Looks like it is still ongoing to me" is not a source. You should provide sources. Only clashes reports comes from the one man ruled SOHR, nobody else and violation of ceasefire is another thing, not a clash. Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Saying operation is ongoing due to casualties is original research, a source needs to state that the operation is ongoing for us to write it like that. No source states that the operation is ongoing, in fact sources state that the operation is over. (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
We a lot depends on what you consider ongoing, Turkish artillery continues to be employed [[13]] [[14]], the cease fire is imaginary [[15]]. Now some of these are three weeks old, but it shows that no the conflict has not ended just dies down. A ceasefire is not an armistice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Just more original research that does not mention operation as ongoing. Compare it to Idlib, shelling is nonstop there, yet the last operation ended in August. Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). Furthermore there is consensus in this discussion against two to one. So I'll make the change now. (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it says "slaughter going on", very neutral source, and the one who says are SDF sources. Of course they are going to say that, it fits their agenda. Beshogur (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Generally for an operation to be over both sides need to say it is over. Ceasefires have to be two way.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"Generally for an operation to be over both sides need to say it is over." Says who? Can you stop making up your own rules. (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Because if one side is still fighting its not over. Because the title of this page is not Operation Peace Spring its "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria".Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
So, you are claiming both are something different? Hmm let's split the page then. Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No I am saying one is part of the other. Only when the two are too large for one page would there be a need for a split.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a page like SDF insurgency in Northern Aleppo, but those clashes are very minor to compared these and it's not an insurgency. Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Or we say the conflict is still ongoing. Turkish forces are still, fighting, thus they are still invading.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Source? I haven't seen any report of Turks are fighting. Isn't it titled as offensive? Is the offensive ongoing? No. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not "Small clashes" as is being stated the Ayn Issa clashes resulted in the deaths of 100 people, and even if you make the argument just because there is a lull in the fighting does not mean operations have halted. I am certain| is also a Sockpuppet. Vallee01 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I already have, are Turkish artillery not Turkish?Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


What I intended to say was that the result prior to my edit was written poorly and that it could not be both a Turkish and allied major victory and a Syrian government minor victory. I then made edit 929704384 which altered the statement to say that Turkey and its allies achieved 'major' gains, whilst the Syrian government achieved a minor victory. I made the edit based upon logic, both the Syrian government and Turkey could not have achieved a victory in a conflict against eachother. As I have absolutely no idea how to @ a non-account, I'll just leave this here. By the way, neither did I break the 1RR, the only revert of another user I did was 929706411, which I then self-reverted. Sisuvia (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

See above thread.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


@Slatersteven:The frontlines didnt change since 26 November per SOHR. Only time they changed hands were per agreements after this date, it should be the date that is posted as over similar to Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019) where airstrikes continue everyday yet the OP is over. (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Source is [16], which uses SOHR to show frontline changes. (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

But this one [[17]] (more up to date) does seem to show some changes (look west of Any Isa).Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


There hasn't been an incident since November 29, after Kurdish withdrawal.

So shouldn't this particular 2019 operation have ended and the result = Turkish Military Victory ? Dilbaggg (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Has there been no incidents? 1st December Turkish forces attacked SDF positions in Girê Spî area in Qizelî & Korîk village. 2nd December Turkish Armed Forces artilery units are targeting SDF positions on Kursan village, western Tel Abyad line of contact. This is enough to tell me this is not over yet, and that Turkey is still directly involved. Its certainly enough to tell me there have been incidents since November 29th. It is too early to say this has concluded.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Source? Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
[[18]] [[19]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Provide a quote form your source that says fighting has stopped.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Well the ceasefire agreement says enough. Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No it does not. We have to have a source saying fighting has stopped (and note as of a date after the ceasefire was signed [[20]]), not that people have agreed to stop it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes even after wars end some insurgency continues. The American Civil War ended in 1865 but some confederate loyalists still continued insurgency over the 19th Century, post war insurgency doesnt't mean continuation of the war. Insurgency often continues after armistices and treaties, stuffs that end wars have already been enforced. But ok lets wait a few more weeks, if nothing major happens and the war is no longer acknowledged in media, I think that should mean its end. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but this is a ceasefire only, Korean War might be a good example. It is still listed as ongoing because no formal peace treaty was signed. Also how do you define major incident? THis is all very subjective, why not wait until an RS says the war if formally and officially over.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes there currently is a stop in the fighting but major conflict occurred on all throughout November, please look at the dates i have put conflict still occurs and there are always times where conflict begins to die down that does not mean it is over. Operation Olive Branch is ongoing because there is still fighting across the area. And there is not just and insurgency there is actual organized fighting. Vallee01 (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Olive Branch is not ongoing because there's some insurgency (not fighting), it is because the offensive did not end officially. Don't find new inventions please. Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
there are still a number of developments taking place around this conflict directly with Turkey. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not titled Olive Branch, its about the Turkish invasion as a whole.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We have this [[21]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point, there are no major continues combat operations by either side. Its been a full two weeks since the last major attempt by either of the combatants to advance. This is something regular for this conflict where operations simply fizzle out without any sources reporting on it. In these situations, the established consensus on which we have been working for years is when there is no major combat for a longer period of time (2-3 weeks) we close the article. At the moment, what is only being reported is sporadic frontline skirmishes. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"As clashes rage..." seems like its rather more then just very minor skirmishes, and again for it to have ended, it has to have ended, not just does down a lot. The fire brigade would not list a fire as out just because only one small bit of wood is still burning.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen any actual mainstream reliable sources or even local on-site sources that confirm major clashes are taking place. Reliefweb seems to have been talking about the sporadic clashes in general (that are indeed continuing) to frame their story about the needs of women. But, no sources confirm ongoing operations by either side as part of the Turkish offensive. Again, the principle on which we have been going on for all Syrian war articles for the past 8 years is, when there are no sources to confirm an offensive/operation is over or ongoing, we wait for a period of up to 2-3 weeks to see if major territorial operations restart. If there is no major continues combat and there are only sporadic clashes, like in this case (which are simply frontline skirmishes), we regard the operation to be over. I would ask that you provide sources that there is major combat ongoing or that the current fighting is part of the offensive because I haven't seen any (since the TFSA assault on Ayn Issa back on November 24th). The war indeed does continue, but no sign the offensive (which is the topic of this article) has continued. In fact, a Turkish security source has stated (November 25th) [22] that Turkey was not resuming its offensive. Once again, I remind that this article is about the Turkish offensive, not about the general Turkish involvement in the conflict or the civil war itself which indeed are continuing. If indeed you would like Wikipedia to cover the sporadic frontline fighting that continues, a separate article on the subject can be created. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
And I have seen no sources that say the fighting is officially over.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Fighting in a war continues even after an offensive/operation is over. EkoGraf (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
We still need as RS saying it is over.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Now as this page is called "Turkish invasion..." when Turkey has ceased all military activity, and withdrawn the invasion is over (as long as RS say it is, of course).Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This page is actually called "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" and the lead paragraph expands further that it is referring to the "Operation Peace Spring" offensive. So no, this article isn't about the Turkish "invasion" (which actually started way back in 2016 with Euphrates Shield and continued with Olive Branch and now this). EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
So which RS have declared the offensive over?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I already linked it both above and in the article, here [23] (this is the most up-to-date one, November 25th). If the article was titled "invasion" I would actually agree with everything you said. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Here are sources on the fighting continuing all from the month November and December[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Turkey might be claiming the fighting is over but it's not, just becuase some one claims does not mean the fighting is over, plenty of governments have lied. Vallee01 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
All of those sources are about the fighting from before November 25th (the date at which a Turkish security source stated the offensive will not be resuming). EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
One is dated 13/10/2019, another is dated 11/12/2019.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The 13/10/2019 one is even from before the main combat phase ended. The 11/12/2019 source is talking about the funeral of SDF fighters who had been killed in Turkish air strikes at the start of the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The fighters where killed in combat not at the start of the fighting, Here is a source directly of fighting that happened on December the 3rd and even if the fighting is slower it doesn't mean it is over in wars there a plenty of times where fighting temporarily stops doesn't mean its over
The source literally says, quote, "ceremony of “moral funeral” for 8 fighters of SDF who have been killed in Turkish aerial bombardment...with the beginning of the Turkish military operation". Note, SOHR reports are often in broken English. As for the source you just linked, its talking about Turkish shelling of Tal Rifaat, which is within the operational zone of "Olive Branch", not "Peace Spring", totally different part of Syria. Also, nothing in it about the Turkish shelling being part of an ongoing offensive. I am not denying the fighting is over, sporadic fighting does indeed continue. However, the offensive/operation (which is the subject of this article) is by all accounts over. Clashes continue in a war even after one operation ends. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A Ceasefire is not an end to the fighting i attempted to look for recent fighting but could only find sporadic bombardment, even if there is a ceasefire that's doesn't mean it has ended. Look at Operation Olive Branch that has been stuck in limbo for years yet is still ongoing. If the fighting does ever heat up again i am going to have good laugh because i suspect it might. Plenty of ceasefires are called it doesn't mean much. Vallee01 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

SDF killed one civilian, dated 10 October, (first day)Edit

What a joke. Update this or take it out. (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In what was it is a joke?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant as the user has been blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a newspaperEdit

We are not a news paper can we please not writes passages in that style (yesterday for example).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


The result needs to state what was the "result" of this. "Sporadic clashes continue" is not a result. Although it is a way to avoid writing Turkish victory. See Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019) or Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018) or Hama offensive (March–April 2017). Or basically any battle in the Syrian Civil War. All of them continue to have sporadic clashes though they have written what was the result of the clash. DongFen (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Present your arguments below, thanks. DongFen (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Major Turkish and allied,[9] partial Syrian Government victory[10] "This is, in the first instance, a victory for the Turks, for Russia and for the Syrian government. Turkey has on the face of things got a large part of what it wanted." and "For the Syrian government too there is good news. President Bashar al-Assad extends his control northwards, though he has had to accept a Turkish presence on Syrian territory." Beshogur (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Or decisive Syrian [[24]] "The biggest winner has been the Syrian government and President [Bashar] al-Assad," Turkish victory, maybe not "the "very volatile" situation on the border meant it was too early to draw conclusions on the results of the Turkish operation." [[25]], not clear cut at all.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a decisive Syrian victory since Syria did not establish full control in the areas it entered, SDF is still present in these areas unlike Turkish held areas are under full Turkish control. DongFen (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
That is kind of my point, we cannot use how we interpret a source. MY source no more says "Decisive Syrian" than any other source presented says "Desicive Turkish..." but the main point of the source is that it says its too early to really say who won.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sporadic clashes continue" (along with the word "Ceasefire") was my attempt at trying to find a temporary compromise solution until a long-term solution is found through discussions here. Except for the "Decisive" part, I would agree the result is a "Turkish and allied victory; Partial Syrian government victory". EkoGraf (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We could add a note and say clashes continue. Putting ceasefire is not needed, because it is already mentioned there. Beshogur (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I support this. It could also state that "Turkish and SNA military victory" and "Partial Syrian Government diplomatic victory". That way it will highlight that Syrian Gov did not achieve victory as a result of battle. Similar to result of Yom Kippur War. The word Partial should remain for Syria to, otherwise it'd imply full victory, as if Syria diplomatically made Turkey leave the North, since that didn't happen partial is fitting. Again comparing to Yom Kippur War. DongFen (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
As the source I provided says its too early to say who really won.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL its not early or late to say what might happen. Sources state that there is a ceasefire and cease of operations. \Also your argument does not align with every other Syrian Civil War battle written. Would you say for example the same result should be written for Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019) since its too early to say who really won? Your argument to stop writing Turkish victory is pretty weak Steven. DongFen (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is because RS have said it is too early. Other RS question the degree (if any) of Turkeys victory, other have said...but there is no need to go on. It is not a given that Turkey won. Nor do I care what we do elsewhere, I care about what we do here, two wrongs do not make a right.17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
One source says one thing the other says another, you don't get to decide which one is written but the rules of Wikipedia WP:CONSISTENCY and consensus does. Also learn to properly sign your comments. Use "~" 4 times without quotes. DongFen (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know, that is what I am saying. We have a disagreement among sources, so we cannot say which one is correct.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What you're doing here is avoiding the argument, I've told you about WP:CONSISTENCY two times and linked other articles with similar result, basically hundreds of Syrian Civil War battle articles result have been written in that order, yet you oppose this here. And avoid addressing this issue in the hope that you "win" the argument. DongFen (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No as I am not seeing any suggestion that in those other campaigns any one question who won. This is the case here. So consistency does not apply as the situation is not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no question on who won here neither, do you have a RS stating its unclear who won? DongFen (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
You seemed to accept there was with "One source says one thing the other says another, you don't get to decide which one is written but the rules of Wikipedia" But here is is again [[26]] "the "very volatile" situation on the border meant it was too early to draw conclusions on the results of the Turkish operation.".Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This RS is dated 9 Nov, before the clashes ended. Now your whole argument is invalid since your only RS has been proven false. You should accept the consensus like an adult. DongFen (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Other sources "Russian is the only winner [[27]] USA, Russia, Turkey [[28]], Turky did not win [[29]]. There are many differing opinions as to the success of this, this is just a sample.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:JUSTDROPIT The first two sources are yet again dated before the clashes ended. The third source al Monitor is non a neutral RS, it is pro SDF media outlet. DongFen (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Support I have made my case and my sources. Vallee01 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vallee01: I would kindly ask that you cancel your edit here [30]. As stated above, all of the sources you provided are from BEFORE the offensive was said to be concluded (November 25th). So the sources are out-dated and do not support that there is an ongoing offensive AFTER November 25th. So, if you are not able to provide a newer sources (dated after November 25th) that clearly states there is an ongoing offensive I would kindly ask that you stop inserting out-dated information. Your last edit was also in violation of Wikipedia's 1RR policy (no more than 1 revert per 24 hours) which can lead to a block, so please cancel out your edit and use the talk page to attempt to find a compromise solution. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Just because there is a ceasefire does not mean it has ended i have stated this before but during Syrian Civil War there where times for months with little to no fighting before the fighting in the north most of the country was calm just because there is a ceasefire or a cessation of conflict does not mean it is over. Vallee01 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Vallee01, Wikipedia works on a specific policy - Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sources that confirm that there is an ongoing offensive. At the moment there are no sources to confirm this. On the contrary, sources state the offensive has been over at least since November 25th. Our unsourced personal opinions on the matter are strictly prohibited as per Wikipedia:No original research. Please read up on these so we can work better together in the future on improving these articles. If and when sources appear to say the offensive has resumed we can reopen the article. Or, if sources state that a new offensive has been launched we can create a new article. I would also like to thank you for canceling your edit. EkoGraf (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The last update we saw was at 25 November 2019.[11] Habertürk said, according security sources the offensive did end and only mine clearing activities are going on. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beshogur: Thank you for finding the source, you could add it to the end date beside the Reuters report. EkoGraf (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@EkoGraf:I found another source (OdaTV) citing Habertürk again, saying: "Güvenlik kaynakları, mevcut Barış Pınarı Harekatı bölgesinin dışında yeni bir bölgenin ele geçirilmesi, orada hakimiyetin, kontrolün sağlanmasının söz konusu olmadığını belirtti. Öte yandan taciz ve saldırılara karşılık veriliyor." meaning (security sources said that no area will be captured, taken into dominance or taken into control than current Peace Spring zone. On another hand, harassment and attacks are being responded to.) although I did not found any info on TSK's website or Ministry of Nat. Defense's website after 25 November except mine clearance, normalization and joint patrols with Russia. I do not know actually, nothing is clear right now. But looks like the offensive did really end. Beshogur (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If nothing is really clear we wait until it is (after all its no long to go till its not 2019 anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
We got at least 2 sources saying the offensive ended by November 25th, several others saying it ended even before that. No sources saying the offensive is ongoing after November 25th. If sources show up that confirm the operation is indeed still ongoing we will make the appropriate changes and reopen the article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets trerat this as non RS shall we [[31]], or this [[32]], how about this from the 27th [[33]]?Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
None of the sources you provided talks about clashes. Beshogur (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
None of the refs talk about an ongoing offensive. In fact, your second source confirms that the October 22nd Turkey-Russia agreement "put a lid on the fighting" and whats taking place now are only skirmishes (not an actual offensive/operation). EkoGraf (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
No they talk about ongoing fighting. "The SDF and Turkey, however, have accused each other of regular violations.", that is not a holding ceasefire. Fighting continues, so all we can say is that Turkey said it was ceasing military operations, not that they have creased.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:Listen. If a ceasefire gets violated, it does not mean there is a war/battle/clash ongoing. Beshogur (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, this article is about a specific offensive. At the moment, no sources confirm there is an ongoing offensive. The "skirmishes" and "regular violations" are also not said to be part of an offensive. They are part of the general conflict yes, which has been going on since 2011, but they are not confirmed to be part of an active military operation (Operation Peace Spring). The ongoing sporadic fighting can be covered (in a summed up version) in one of the other articles, such as Syrian Civil War, Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War or Rojava conflict. The sporadic clashes, skirmishes, incidents or ceasefire violations (whatever they are called) can also be covered in the "aftermath" section of this article. There's also the option of creating a totally new article similar to Idlib demilitarization (2018–present), with its subject being the ongoing implementation of the Turkish-Russian-Syrian gov. buffer zone in the northeast. And this article could include the occasional violations that are taking place. Just because there is some leftover occasional fighting does not mean there is an active offensive (unless the sources say there is one). EkoGraf (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Vallee01's two times violation of 1RREdit

first1, first1 and second1, second 2. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Then report it here WP:AN/3.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I am confused how come you can constantly change editing without any consensus being formed and that's fine but when other people make a correction moreover why are you using alt accounts to make edits. Vallee01 (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to stop accusing people with using alt accounts? WP:CONSPIRACY. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit wars are reported here WP:AN/3 sock puppetry is reported here WP:SPI, please use the services we provide.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, isn't that for 3 reverts? Beshogur (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beshogur: It's for any edit-warring, which includes the 3 revert rule and the 1 revert rule (where applicable). — MarkH21talk 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Not having SDF under "Belligerents" in the infobox?Edit

@Beshogur: I'm slightly confused by this revert. Why shouldn't the Syrian Democratic Forces be placed in the infobox under belligerents? It's a little confusing that its flag and acronym (SDF) is used in the "Commanders and leaders", "Strength", and "Casualties and losses" sections of the infobox but not in the "Belligerents" section. We have the Commander-in-Chief of SDF listed under the commanders of one side and we have casualty numbers next to the SDF flag, but nothing in the infobox indicates who that party is!

I understand that the SDF is the official defense force of the already-listed Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, but it would be confusing to any reader looking at the infobox who does not know both that fact and the flag before-hand. — MarkH21talk 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, it is because they are an armed group, not belligerent. They are listed at order of battle as you can see. But now you will ask, why is Syrian National Army there. It is because some user did not want to put Syrian Interim Government there so they used Syrian National Army, which I am against as well. There is chief of Turkish army listed as well, but Turkey is listed as belligerent, not Turkish Armed Forces. So long story short, SDF is not a political entity but an armed group. Same goes for Syrian National Army. Actually Syrian Interim Government should be there. In my opinion "leftist volunteers" should be removed as well. I want to hear other users. Beshogur (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Then I would suggest to use the Syrian Interim Government in place of the Syrian National Army and to use the flag of the NES instead of the SDF flag (akin to the usage of the Turkish flag instead of the Turkish Armed Forces emblem) for consistency and minimal confusion. — MarkH21talk 01:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it was already discussed and agreed the TFSA, not the Syrian Interim Government, would be listed in the infobox as per the already established template of other articles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Can you point out where? Also, at the very least I'll change the SDF flags to NES flags first so it's clear which political entity they belong to and so there's consistency. — MarkH21talk 19:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

updates made to Syrian Civil War articleEdit

I have made updates to the article Syrian Civil War. Just letting you know. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Major dispute at UN over help for Syrian refugeesEdit

I have added the following text to the main article. Please feel free to add this information to any articles which pertain to the current plight of refugees in Syria!!

Section: Syrian_Civil_War#United_Nations_dispute
As of December 18, 2019, a diplomatic dispute is occurring at the UN over re-authorization of cross-border aid for refugees. China and Russia are opposing the current draft resolution that seeks to re-authorize crossing points in Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan; China and Russia, as allies of Assad, seek to close the two crossing points in Iraq and Jordan, and to leave only the two crossing points in Turkey active. [1]
All of the ten individuals representing the non-permanent members of the Security Council stood in the corridor outside of the chamber speaking to the press to state that all four crossing points are crucial and must be renewed. [1]
United Nations official Mark Lowcock is asking the UN to re-authorize cross-border aid to enable aid to continue to reach refugees in Syria. He says there is no other way to deliver the aid that is needed. He noted that four million refugees out of the over eleven million refugees who need assistance are being reached through four specific international crossing points. Lowcock serves as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. [2]

I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Strikes me as undue, this is not about the invasion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I do hear your point. on the other hand, it does pertain to Turkey's desire for increased influence over and manipulation of the situation of ordinary Syrians, doesn't it? which to me, stems directly from the invasion by Turkish forces. I do hear your point on this as well, though. I do appreciate your reply here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Then it should be in the overall article, not one about a specific operation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
ok, fair enough. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References for above:Edit


  1. ^ a b Clash at UN Security Council over cross-border aid for Syria. Russia, China oppose draft resolution to add new crossing point in Turkey, extend cross-border operations for year. December 19, 2019.
  2. ^ UN: Ability to Get Lifesaving Aid to 4 Million Syrians at Risk By Margaret Besheer, December 18, 2019.


If its over it should be "was a cross-border military operation conducted by the Turkish military", "is" means it is ongoing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Konli17:, can you please revert your edit. I can't count how many times you reverted this edit. Please bring it back to its orginal version. The offensive is not ongoing. Please give a valid reason to your edits. @Slatersteven: I did change to "was" however this user keep changing it to ongoing. @EkoGraf:, what do you think? Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that (as I have said many times) we are not a newspaper and we should always write in past tense, even if an event is still ongoing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
If it is ongoing, we should say it is ongoing, but is is not. Beshogur (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Not according to the MOS MOS:RELTIME As it becomes out of date (and also avoids this very kind of issue).Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Its over so, it should be in the past tense. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Not the point I made.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't ended though, it's only ceasefire at the moment, plus "Turkish Victory" and "Partial Syrian Victory" Doesn't make sense, there were two sides, Syria and Rojava on one and Turkey and FSA on the other. XelatSharro (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed it to the past tense, Beshogur. Was there anything else? Konli17 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


The Invasion hasn't ended yet, why is it "Turkish Victory"? XelatSharro (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh here we go again. Beshogur (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Already discussed above. This article is specifically about the Turkish military operation/offensive Peace Spring, which has been stated to be over as of November 25th. This article is not about the general Turkish involvement/invasion in northern Syria, of which this operation was only one part of. EkoGraf (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to stop? See this. Beshogur (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

New casualties addedEdit

I see that still new casualties are being added per Sohr despite the fact that this ‘’operation’’ has ended (see result). I think that something is wrong with that Gal17928 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. They should be removed. Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed them. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop your month-long edit warEdit

@Konli17 and Beshogur: You need to stop edit-warring immediately. Your slow edit war (including one edit by Dongfen) goes back to December 12 with no evidence of any resolution. You'll both probably end up blocked if you continue. Diffs:

  1. 16:57, December 12, 2019 by Konli17
  2. 18:53, December 12, 2019 by Beshogur
  3. 15:49, December 14, 2019 by Konli17
  4. 16:21, December 14, 2019 by Dongfen
  5. 22:25, December 15, 2019 by Konli17
  6. 12:05, December 18, 2019 by Beshogur
  7. 12:49, December 21, 2019 by Konli17
  8. 14:29, December 21, 2019 by Beshogur
  9. 14:08, December 24, 2019 by Konli17
  10. 18:28, December 27, 2019 by Beshogur
  11. 10:34, January 15, 2020 by Konli17

To be honest, both of you should have been blocked a long time ago for edit-warring on an article that already has WP:1RR restrictions. — MarkH21talk 11:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, where do you see an 1RR violation? User Konli17 is avoiding to use the talk page by always saying "see talk" and writing nothing. Beshogur (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur: There's no explicit 1RR violation, but edit-warring around the restriction is also against the edit-warring policy: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.MarkH21talk 11:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" page.