Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New casualties added

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 war

@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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Tense

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)

Renaming to Operation Peace Spring?

Operation Olive branch and Euphrate Shield go by their Turkish name shouldn't 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. 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, results
• Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria 11,800, results
• Turkish offensive into northern Syria 9,330, results
• Operation Peace Spring 48,800, results
• Turkish invasion of Syria 6,200, results

look WP:COMMON. Beshogur (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

Title of article

The title of this article is nothing but spin. The title is "Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" there is in fact a word for an "offensive" that starts in one country (eg"Turkish") and goes into another (*eg "north-eastern Syria). That word is *invasion*. In this case, a collection of words appear to have been put together to specifically avoid the use of the word invasion. This is exactly what that is, and wikipedia is a neutral source, and shouldn't allow the strategic use of phrasing for the purpose of bias. This article should be simply, *Turkish Invasion of North-Eastern Syria*....because that is exactly what it is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. As an Arab I can say that most Syrians and Arabs in general know that the American offensives in the region are invasions, especially that they openly admit that they are stealing oil from there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

So what you're saying is they are both invasions, but they aren't being called that? That's not an argument, for not changing this title. In fact I agree with you, in that case, they should both be changed, however, I'm obviously dealing with this one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's policy, we name an article per its most common name. And this has been deemed, as in previous discussions, to be the most common name. EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Name is already settled. Don't start another discussion. Beshogur (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian has a point. If the article was solely about the TFSA, offensive would definitely be more appropriate. But its not. Konli17 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t an invasion and calling it one would be wrong. Most of the sources refer to it as a “Turkish offensive to north-eastern Syria”. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, I just took a brief look at this talk page and have come to the conclusion that this article should be semi-protected. Any thoughts? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: The page was temporarily protected in the past, but there has been no recent disruption as far as I can see. We don't need to protect it if there are currently no issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

All right then, thanks for informing me. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Map

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. 206.53.88.85 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 [[2]] 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 [3]? 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 [[4]]. 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. http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=146572 https:// www.veteranstoday.com/2019/11/03/sdf-recaptures-eight-villages-in-northern-al-hasakah-from-turkish-sna/ https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/clashes-continue-ne-syria-despite-us-push-cease-fire http://www.adarpress.net/english/index.php/news/2926-democratic-syria-regains-eight-villages-in-northern-syria-from-the-turkish-occupation http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=146832 https://newsobservatory.com/breaking-heavy-clashes-taking-place-between-turkish-backed-sna-and-sdf-in-the-vicinity-of-kafia-village-west-of-tal-abyad/. These are just a few of the sources they are many more. Vallee01 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The map really needs to be updated

The current map is completely out of date here is roughly how the map should look something like tbis: https://syria.liveuamap.com

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. https://imgur.com/a/6nb8qTF 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: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fighting-continues-in-northern-syria-11574726784 http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=148365 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-the-slaughter-in-syria-still-goes-on-1.8187413 http://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/syria-kurds-battle-turkey-led-offensive-%E2%80%94-monitor https://www.thedailybeast.com/syria-says-troops-will-confront-turkish-forces-at-border-town https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13980903000477 https://anfenglishmobile.com/rojava-syria/sdf-attacks-of-the-occupation-forces-continue-39727 https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/sdf-attempts-of-invasion-continue-39619 https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/sdf-statement-on-ongoing-invasion-attacks-39648 https:// southfront.org/sdf-syrian-army-repel-northern-raqqa-attack-push-turkish-backed-militants-back/ http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=147958 http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=143803 http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=147897 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)

Rojava

Amr, what's wrong with using Rojava? It's more specific than 'northern Syria'. Konli17 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

All sources point to the area as northern or northeastern Syria, so we have to stick with that. On top of that, this is a conflict involving SAA and happening on the internationally-recognized territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. Using any other name would be OR, and is not accepted. I hope this is clear. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

All sources? Konli17 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The area "Rojava" means "West" in Kurdish specifically "Western Kurdistan". The official name for Rojava is the "Autonomous Administration of North East Syria", much of the fighting is also taking places like Al-Haskah which is not the region of Western Kurdistan instead being majority Arab. Calling it Rojava would not take into account the Arab areas fighting along side the SDF and much of the areas of fighting are non-Kurdish areas, the term is sectarian in its very nature. The AANES (Really bad name) has made it clear they are fighting for Syria, not a Kurdistan nation, but with Kurdish autonomy. Using the term "Rojava" would be acceptable in two scenarios, 1: The official name of AANES being Rojava (Its not), 2: The areas of Invasion only being Kurdish Areas, (The majority of the current fighting is based around Ayn Issa, an non-kurdish area). Vallee01 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Very well said Vallee01. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2020

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

---

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria → Operation Peace Spring – WP:COMMONNAME, shorter and simpler, and matches with other Turkish Operation names in Syria (e.g Olive Branch, Spring Shield, Euphrates Shield) Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:POVTITLE. It would be like moving Iraq War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, ignoring the perspective of everyone but the propagandists. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, this has already called, for starters it would be written from a Turkish Perspective also does not explain the entirety of the fighting. Vallee01 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 invasion threat

Is there already any article on the 2022 threat? Or it should be added to this article? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We need sources first. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)