Open main menu

Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

  (Redirected from Talk:Operation Peace Spring)

Turkish sourcesEdit

Should not be used for statements of fact (even in the info box), and claim sourced to these sources must be attributed (even in the infobox).Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "Turkish sources should not be used for statements of fact (even in the info box)". Says who? And why did you add a neutrality tag based on your personal belief? KasimMejia (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
wp:npov, wp:rs makes it clear that any statement of fact must be attributed unless it is by third party (I.E. uninvolved) parties. As to why I put the tag, for that reason, this is an ongoing conflict in which both sides will use propaganda, so any claim is open to doubt. Also the degree if trivial claims being added looks unnuetral, every claim made by Turkey (not matter how trivial) is being added. When the article only uses third party RS the tag can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: There is a thing called visual confirmation. Which specific Turkish source do you believe is false? Both RasUlAyn and M4 highway are supported by videos showing them under TAF control. Please take out your POV tag. IF SDF makes a claim supported by video, you can add it is a the same way. KasimMejia (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is the video evidence for RasUlAyn[1] and here is M4 highway [2]. KasimMejia (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Statements are being attributed to sources they do not make, Ras al-Ain town has not been captured Tel Halaf in the Ras al-Ain has been (according to the source). Thus this raises doubts (in my mind) as to general neutrality, see all the threads above. Casualties not being evenly reports, absolute trivia, and misrepresentation, all in favour of one side. That is lack of neutrality. I do not believe any Turkish source is false, I believe they are not third party or Neutral. What they say may (MAY!) be accurate, or it may be false. The article overly relies on one sides announcements, thus is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Ras Al Ayn has been captured according to the Turkish source and there is video of SNA fighters inside the town. Do you believe it is still not captured despite all this? And if you believe there is more material on Turkish civilian casualties why don't you report the other sides casualties instead of alleging that its not neutral? As far as sources say Turkish sides casualties are the only one we have detailed information about. If you believe there are casualties on the other side you are welcome to add them. KasimMejia (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
All that is irrelevant read wp:v, if the source does not say it we cannot use the source to say it. By the way, the above is exactly what I mean, "its my job to add the other sides story", no, its all of our jobs to be neutral and add relevant information. Recent edits included (again read above) adding to all the Turkish civilian dead, but ignored some caused by turkey with the claim "Turkey has now has more civilians killed" (which was not true, at the point the edit was made), using of course only Turkish sources)). As I said there is an over reliance on one sides POV, and thus the article is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: "if the source does not say it we cannot use the source to say it." WHAT? THE source DOES SAY it, didnt you even read the source before starting this discussion? I even added to source up there for you to read? KasimMejia (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Are you still in this discussion or not? KasimMejia (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I see the source in question has now been removed. The BBC source does not say Ras al-Ain has been captured, it says there is still heavy fighting there. Nor dose the SOHR source say that, its just talks about villages in the Ras al-Ain area.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Can I ask you why you suddenly leave the discussion when proven wrong? You did it yesterday too. [3] KasimMejia (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not, Christ I cannot even respond to this without making it seem like a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, KasimMejia. Your fellow editors are not your servant, at your beck and call. Between 11:22 and 11:46 Slatersteven did not even edit Wikipedia. It is unreasonable for you to demand he reply (and even if they were editing Wikipedia, they may have been busy editing other articles or something else). If you are actively waiting on the talk page for a reply, you are doing it wrong. Also - KasimMejia - please stop using Twitter as a source. If something is notable, reliable sources will pick it up. Not WP:SELFPUB sources like Twitter. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I used Twitter once, and that was the twitter account of the media outlet TRT World. You think we shouldn't? KasimMejia (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: - when something is important, articles will be written about it. Not just tweets. Think of how people will read the article in 10 years time. WP:10YT. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Imo, in general when we are talking about a country that is in a state of war and also has a total lack of freedom of the press... what comes out of its muzzled press should be verified elsewhere. This applies as much to Turkey as it does to Russia, Zimbabwe, or whoever.--Calthinus (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

From our own pages on Turkey's situation: During its 12-year rule, the ruling AKP has gradually expanded its control over media.[12] Today, numerous newspapers, TV channels and internet portals dubbed as Yandaş Medya ("Partisan Media") or Havuz Medyası ("Pool Media") continue their heavy pro-government propaganda.[13] Several media groups receive preferential treatment in exchange for AKP-friendly editorial policies.[14] Some of these media organizations were acquired by AKP-friendly businesses through questionable funds and processes.[15] Media not friendly to AKP, on the other hand, are threatened with intimidation, inspections and fines.[16] These media group owners face similar threats to their other businesses.[17] An increasing number of columnists have been fired for criticizing the AKP leadership.[18][19][20][21]. Something to keep in mind.--Calthinus (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Again I fell a reminder is needed, and note this applies to casualties, this kind of thing is not excepted. Can we please just have one casualty update every 24 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I would endorse that idea. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Political wings as belligerents in the infobox.Edit

@Goodposts: Why are we using SDF's and TAF's (Turkish Armed Forces) political wing but using SNA by their military wing? It should be called by its political wing SIG (Syrian Interim Gov). And there aren't sources regarding SDF and Turkey as well so a source is not needed for obvious facts. KasimMejia (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Because that's how the given sources describe it. Both of them mention the "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army", but neither of them mentions a "Syrian Interim Government". In addition, a consensus that's usually followed in other articles is to list it as TFSA in the infobox and as "Syrian National Army" in the order of battle. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Goodposts: I don't understand what that's suppose to mean. Let me ask you again, why are we using SDF's political wing and SNA's military wing? No source mentions the name Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria either. KasimMejia (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: I can't explain the rationale behind that, as I wasn't the one who added that in. I wouldn't object to them being listed as Syrian Democratic Forces, but other wikipedians should give their opinion on this as well. Goodposts (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It would be best to use the terms actually sourced. (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I   Agree and propose we follow the sources by referring to the parties in the exact way the sources are by making the following changes:

  • Republic of Turkey --> Turkey
  • Syrian Interim Govt --> Turkish-Backed Free Syrian Army
  • Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria --> Syrian Democratic Forces
  • Syria is already listed by it's common name, so no change needed there.

By doing so, we would be following what the sources are stating and avoid the dispute entirely. Courtesy pinging @KasimMejia,, Slatersteven, Starship.paint, EkoGraf, and ST47:. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Turkish-Backed Free Syrian Army" name does not exist. You should use their neutral name, which is Syrian National Army. Beshogur (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The sources refer to it as TFSA. Furthermore, an already established consensus dictates that when discussed, it be listed as TFSA in the belligerent infobox, and as SNA in the order of battle. Goodposts (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's policy we name something per their common name. And the common name for the organisation that is fighting the SDF alongside the Turkish military is the "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army", for which we also have an article. The "Syrian National Army" is their self-proclaimed official name yes, but not the common name under which reliable sources call them. Agree with everything proposed by Goodposts. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I agree with Goodposts as well. (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Goodposts, as it would be consistent to list all of the specific groups involved. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay fine Goodposts. starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be Syrian Interim Government, it is only fair and objective ideally everything should be referred to by their official names this avoids controversy, as well as misunderstandings it is also truly neutral whereas names like "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army" have negative connotations, the name is also extremely long and does not fit well into the infobox and isn't fair at all as every other faction is referred to by their official names, the "TFSA" which is the Syrian National Army is the Official Armed forces of the Syrian Interim Government just as the Syrian Democratic Forces is the official armed forces the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, I fully support listing the AANES by its official names and likewise listing the SIG by its official name, this is the only and best way to preserve the academic and encyclopedic value of the article and truly present the conflict, to avoid confusion, bias or anything else and simply let people make up their own minds with the accurate, neutral, and objective material in the article, as this is what Wikipedia is intended for.Takinginterest01 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────We all agree about the confusion, bias, and neutral parts. But calling it the Syrian Interim Government and Syrian National Army just isn't neutral. It implies it is the actual interim government of Syria and the actual army of Syria, wich it isn't. The same goes for the Kurdish administration. It also has to do with what they are commonly called. (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I just want to note that changing "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" to SDF carries some problems, as the local security and police forces, as well as leftist groups do not operate under the SDF umbrella. As result, I would be in favor of keeping a title that includes these groups such as "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" or similar. If sources surface that indicate that pro-Turkish police forces are involved in the operation, I would also support restoring the "Syrian Interim Government" title. Applodion (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly all rather trivial, and exactly why the POV tag needs to remain. I always prefer official names.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


User178198273998166172, re: this edit, please see MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE, which say to "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." Whatever "other articles" you see done like that are incorrect. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, User178198273998166172, don't add small text to an infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the three countries mentioned under SDF support is correct.Edit

@Patrickgom0: @Goodposts: @David O. Johnson: Neither US, Syria or Russia has provided any support to SDF since the operation began. The source for US claims "Us telling we won't abandon you" it is only vocal support that hasnt' materialized. As for Syria and Russia, they began taking land ceded by SDF. That is not support in terms of infobox support section. KasimMejia (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence of the intro has this ref [4], which indicates that Syria is sending SAA to the area. There's also this ref [5] (in the 14 October subsection) indicating that Russians have deployed to the Aleppo area. It seems like enough support to me to warrant infobox inclusion.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
How is that support? They are taking land from them basically, for all taken into mind, they might as well be listed under Turkish side for cutting up SDF. A source needs to directly state the word support or supply of arms for us to call it that. KasimMejia (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Most sources write about them being allied now. That should be enough for now. (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Which source? There is none that writes that in the article. If you post it here then I'll add it into the article. And what about the US support? It's a failed verification.. KasimMejia (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's written about it in an BBC article for example.[6] As for the U.S. support they have been supporting the SDF for years with weapons and other material support. And I believe there was an article about the U.S. not stopping that material support. However I will have to look that up again to be certain.[7] (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows US armed SDF until the operation, but there are no reports of it continuing since the operation began. KasimMejia (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I haven't heard of the US supporting the SDF after the start of the offensive. I even read somewhere that Trump gave the order for arms deliveries to cease at about this time. The captured HUMVEE was likely delivered to the SDF prior to the start of the offensive. The article that the fellow editor was referencing was dated about three weeks ago, when the US was still supplying arms and vehicles to the SDF. However, that was just over a week before the start of the offensive. In order to include the US as a supporter in the context of this offensive, a source that clearly states that some form of materiel support has been given to the SDF after the offensive began should be added. Goodposts (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


75 deadEdit

[[8]], is the reliable, who made the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SDF made it I guess, and no. It's the opposite of reliable. Zero visual confirmation and about x30 the number per Turkey and x10 of that of SOHR. KasimMejia (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Visual conformation is not relevant, its a claim made by one side, why should it not be included?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SAA deploying to some towns.Edit

@Abutalub: Can you please add a source for the material you added here [9]? Only source in the article is about SAA deployment at Tabqa city, and no word on a takeover. Or no sources about Tabqa Airbase takeover or deployment there neither. KasimMejia (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Name of the belligerents in the infobox (again)Edit

Can this be solved once and for all? Ever since this operation began somebody has been changing the names at the infobox non stop. There are almost 10 changes everyday back and forth by different users. From Turkey to Republic of Turkey. Or from Syrian Interim Gov to Turkish Backed Free Syrian Army. etc... Can we just reach a consensus and keep the same names from now on? I suggest using ALL sides with their FULL and POLITICAL name. SO: REPUBLIC OF TURKEY - SYRIAN INTERIM GOVERNMENT and AUTONOMOUS ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH AND EAST SYRIA - SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC. Please give your opinions below. KasimMejia (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ─────────────────────────  Disagree I prefer what the sources states, what they are most commonly known as, and what previous Wikipedia articles refer to them as. So Turkey, Syria, SFD, TBFSA etc. (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

There's already an ongoing discussion on this here: [10]. Why start a new Talk page section on it? David O. Johnson (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The AAONAES... is not used by anyone. Rojava is. Turkey, likewise, not Republic of Turkey. On the other hand, the Syrian Arab Republic is not the only claimant on "Syria", so we should use the SAR for that. --Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Who uses "rojava"? No international entity or mainstream media outlet does. I would suggest SDF or YPG instead. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Cherrypicked picturesEdit

I see that they have been sneakily reinserted after I removed them. I am talking about the picture of Jens Stoltenberg captioned with him saying that Turkey has "legitimate concerns". This is very cherrypicked. First of all, this is only a tiny part of the NATO position which overall does not look at the operation positively. Second of all, that this is the only picture in its area and it is an endorsement of what is internationally not a mainstream view -- held only by the governments of Turkey and three allied states (Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Qatar -- none of which really matter here). Third, the emphasis on his quote is effectively functioning like a block quote, and the usage of block quotes to promote one point of view is specifically discouraged. Likewise, the picture of the protests in Berlin -- that belongs, if anywhere, on the Reactions page (assuming it doesn't get deleted, which is pretty safe as it's like 1 delete vote to 30 keep votes or something like that last I checked).

Picture placement, especially on a topic like this, should be done in a way that is sensitive to NPOV. This is not.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ISIS escapeEdit

@EtienneDolet and KasimMejia: perhaps it's best to WP:NORUSH on this one and wait for more news analysis of the event to emerge. The last thing we need is a he-said-she-said dispute with non-RS including the US president going back and forth and just confusing people.--Calthinus (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced Sabah with Hurriyet, though they quoted the Trump tweet nevertheless. Trump hasn't accused Turkey of ISIS prisoners yet, in fact supported, saying Turkey will take care of them. But he did accuse SDF of them, saying Kurds may be releasing some to get the US involved. Also I don't understand your revert, thanks for self reverting after 1RR warning though. If we are including an SDF claim, why shouldn't we include that of Turkeys. And better yet Trumps? KasimMejia (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
So we are all clear, this is what I want to remove: The offensive also caused at least 750 ISIS affiliates escape from their detention camp. SDF accused Turkey stating they escaped after Turkish bombs struck near the prison compound.[39] While US President Donald Trump accused SDF on Twitter saying "Kurds may be releasing some ISIS fighters to get the United States involved".[40] And Turkey stated that SDF released ISIS prisoners before their arrival.[41]
The dust has not settled on this and US President Donald Trump is known for saying things that ... aren't always backed up by RS. In fact, we have a whole wikipedia page on this fascinating phenomenon. We do not know the details of any sort of "causation" for the escape, only that it happened, at present, unless there is some breaking news I have just missed. I don't think in such a situation of uncertainty, that we should be giving any accusations weight. No causation for the escape should be stated at all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I know alot of people criticize Trump but he is the US president after all, the most powerful person in the world according to many and the top decision maker of the US. So his statements do matter, whether they have sense or not. KasimMejia (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As the most powerful executive in the world and the States' top decision maker, his executive decisions do matter. But he ranks way down the line when it comes to the nation's great orators, military minds or comics, so his observations and ponderances are no big deal (outside of journalism, where they've become more valued than murder stories). If he decides something, then we'll make like the news and "quote" his alleged rationale. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, October 15, 2019 (UTC)
You're correct that the detail matters, but it does not belong in the lede. Not everything Trump says is so important that it trumps [unfortunate pun not intended] everything else. The lede is for summarizing the most important things for a reader to comprehend. Wiki is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we will have a better idea of the overall significance of this event once the dust settles. --Calthinus (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I was not the user to place it to the lede anyway. An user added it with only the SDF statement on it. So I added the Trump and Turkish statements to make it more neutral. Here is my edit adding neutrality. [11] KasimMejia (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with EtienneDolet that it should be included in the lead. Obviously, this is one of main concerns about the "operation", and it is already happening - as a matter of fact. I also agree with Calthinus - no statements by the Trump and Turkish side about it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"no statements by the Trump and Turkish side about it" Wow, even if you want this it cannot be done because Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality and non POV WP:NPOV. According to you this whole article should be written based on SDF accounts I assume. KasimMejia (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the answer will be "no, third party RS".Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mvbw: Imo, we should state the fact that the escape happened, for sure. I don't think we should be saying why. An intelligent reader can figure out that it's not a coincidence that the escape happened during the offensive. But do we really have enough sourcing to positively assert a cause at this point? For sure we should discuss why in the body; I fear having it in the lede is an invitation to future disputes over whose speculations to put or not put there. Right now we have "caused" EDIT: actually it says "allowed" -- I'd rather it said "During the operation, 750 ISIS prisoners escaped from prison in ..." --Calthinus (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think keeping it simple in the lead is the way to go. ISIS' role in the SCW is undeniably one of the most important. The escape itself is quite notable and a pretty big development. Our readers should at least be reading something about it from the get-go. Besides, we have an entire section about it in the body, the lead should summarize. 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
And I also agree with Slaterseven. If and when RS say this, then we can put it there. For now, no. --Calthinus (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion simply does not belong to the lead, it can be included in the body of page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm fine with this too. --Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the most we could have is a mention of the concerns about escapes, and no more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there are no doubts that at least one mass escape from a camp had already happen, although different sources provide different numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
True, but the fear of one is what is significant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is probably even more significant. This is not just a fear, but well known strategy by ISIS they used in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thus I think something like "western leaders have expressed concerns about the impact this will have on counter ISIL operations", rather then about escapes as such.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

One thing it seems near everyone agrees on is no more unverified Trump statements in the lede. Nevertheless due to 1RR issues it appears it has resurfaced. Can someone rectify this? (I will get taken to ANI:3RR if I do I fear). --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

TFSA is releasing ISIS prisoners and then blaming SDFEdit

Currently the article implies that it is the SDF releasing ISIS detainees, but that is not the case. The TFSA (Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army) is going to unguarded prisons and releasing ISIS detainees in order to blame the SDF.

Source comes from a senior US administration official. Reported by Lara Seligman, a Pentagon corespondent.

Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Twitter is not reliable. ---- Besides, US president accused SDF of releasing ISIS after all, the article does not imply it, it says that the US president accused SDF of releasing ISIS detainees. KasimMejia (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Big revert from the ledeEdit

@My very best wishes: Why did you take out a large portion of the lede about Turkish announcement regarding SAA deployment [12]? This is a very important detail, I don't see any reason for its deletion. Turkey is basically saying we will still go in and have agreed with Russia. KasimMejia (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a single phrase, However Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in a press conference on 14 October that Turkey had received a positive response from Russia on Kobani and that Turkey was at the execution phase of its Manbij decision.. What does it mean "a positive response"? A positive response about what? How this is related to "the execution phase of its Manbij". And what is "the execution phase of its Manbij"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess positive response means, Russia agreed Turkish takeover of Kobani and Manbij execution means the offensive on Manbij starting, which started shortly afterwards. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
But regardless, why have you taken it out? Now the lede looks missing, there are statements of SAA coming to aid, then suddenly moves to Manbij offensive starting. As if Turkey didn't make a statement about it before starting the offensive. I'd like you to place it back. KasimMejia (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not something "you guess". What exactly the source tells? My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
So you do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have no idea what this phrase actually means. So is the reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I formatted that wrong, it was not a response to you. "Positive" can mean anything, especially is this age of spin.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Currently we have a subheading for each and every single day. This is fine if the offensive ends shortly, but there's nothing to say it won't drag on for weeks or even months. Shouldn't we instead use headings to mark notable events during the timeline, rather than each and every day? Furthermore, I'm wondering if we should seperate SAA deployments under a separate heading, instead of lumping it together with the Turkish advances in the timeline. Thoughts? Goodposts (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the offensive has progressed more, so we are able to more easily split it into phases. At the moment it is in general just Tel Abyad and Serekaniye pingponging between SDF and Turkish control. -Thespündragon 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter as sourceEdit

Twitter shouldn't be use a source if possible. Most of these infomations are unconfirmed and they are not from official outlets. Beshogur (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is not a very desirable source, but consensus holds that it can be used, so long as the tweets in question come from verified accounts of trusted sources. It's frequently used as agencies don't tend to report on things such as the control of villages or smaller towns in outright articles, preferring instead to tweet them. Whenever possible, those sources are later upgraded to full articles. Goodposts (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish-backed FSA or Syrian Interim Government?Edit

@Karma1998:, @Takinginterest01:, @David O. Johnson:, @EkoGraf:. The sources refer to the Syrian allies of Turkey as Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army or Syrian National Army. — [13], [14], [15], [16]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Syrian National Army is under Syrian Interim Government control, which is currently active and based in Jarabulus. Beshogur (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: The Syrian National Army is the military branch of the Syrian Interim Government. -Karma1998 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Interim GovernmentTakinginterest01 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────  Disagree I prefer what the sources states, what they are most commonly known as, and what previous Wikipedia articles refer to them as. So Turkey, Syria, SFD, TBFSA etc. (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I (and others) stated above, Wikipedia's policy is to go with the common name as per reliable sources, and the common name is the "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army". EkoGraf (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I believe we should stick to what the sources are saying. The Sources are talking about TFSA, not about an interim government. Moreover, as I've stated before, there was an ongoing consensus about exactly this issue, which dictated that that organization be listed as TFSA in the infobox, and their 'military wing' be listed as "Syrian National Army" in the OOB. Goodposts (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's best to stick with the WP:RS; thus, they should be referred to as the TFSA. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2/3 of the sources cited for the presence of Turkish-backed rebels in the operation use the official name "Syrian National Army", whereas the remaining uses simply "Free Syrian Army". There are no sources citing that the Syrian Interim Government itself ordered the SNA's presence in the assault, just that SNA is acting as a proxy force for the Turkish military. As such, I would use "Syrian National Army" in the infobox for that faction. -Thespündragon 23:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have Turkish sources for it. BBC[[17]] Another source saying Syrian National Army belongs to their "Ministry of National Defense" of Syrian Interim Government.[[18]] Turkey's The Independent saying the same.[[19]] Another source OdaTV.[[20]] Here Euronews's news, Abdurrahman Mustafa, head of SIT, saying "this army we founded" (ctrl f; Oluşturduğumuz bu ordu).[[21]] So it's obvious that they're under interim government control. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

One sided statement in the lede.Edit

Why are we including SDF's statement regarding ISIS prisoners, but have removed that of Turkeys [22]? Trumps accusation of SDF was removed after a discussion [23] but removing Turkish statement was never discussed. This is an active conflict and we are required to write about both sides statements to maintain neutrality WP:NPOV. Anybody object to inclusion of Turkish statement please state your reason below. KasimMejia (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Double inclusion.Edit

@Slatersteven: Can you revert this edit [24] because you double included material already included in detail at the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria#Western sanctions and suspension of arms sales. We should not we double writing anything except those in the lede. Which is a summary. KasimMejia (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Actually never mind this, looks like the material you added is new, however I'll move it to the correct section. KasimMejia (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria[Edit

Donny may have announced it, but they are still in Kobani, and preventing the Syrian army from entering it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah agree. Though the announcement of it is still important. KasimMejia (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Not as (in effect) a result, not until it has happened.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
How do you propose it be changed? KasimMejia (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Remove it from the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Shall it say, withdrawal of US troops except for Kobani? They totally left Manbij according to the US's own Twitter account [25]. I also imagine they left Raqqa and parts of North West corner as well, since Gov is entering. KasimMejia (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
No, why? For a start, what you imagine is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying lets write that they've withdrew from where I imagine. Just think there should be some note of US withdrawal in the infobox since SAA is entering many areas. Otherwise it makes it seem as if SAA is entering areas with US presence still. KasimMejia (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Then we just do not list those areas (if we must list every place anyone enters, which I doubt).Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the current note about complete withdrawal should stay since the order has been given. And the order happened because of the recent events I think. US decided to pack up since SAA starting coming as well as the Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
And order can be rescinded, until it has been fully carried out. Read wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
How are they gonna rescind it when the SAA has entered those towns? Are they gonna fight SAA to enter Manbij and Raqqa? KasimMejia (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That is not for us the second guess, we report what has happened, not what might happen. At this time the US has not fully pulled out of Northern Syria and until they accounced they have we cannot say they have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Then lets change it to, start of complete US withdrawal? KasimMejia (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not a failed verification [26] by the way. Trump said all US personel except those in Al-Tanf would be leaving Syria. This statement is written in the citation. Tanf is a non SDF rebel pocket with US troops in the south west corner. KasimMejia (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: here is the statement, in the link """""Trump said in a statement Monday that US troops "coming out of Syria will now redeploy and remain in the region to monitor the situation and prevent a repeat of 2014, when the neglected threat of ISIS raged across Syria and Iraq. A small footprint of United States forces will remain at At Tanf Garrison in southern Syria to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS. """"" so please take that false [failed verification] out. KasimMejia (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Will, not have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
What? KasimMejia (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Will redeploy does not mean have redeployed, future Vs present tense.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Do you support changing it to "Start of complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria"? KasimMejia (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
No, as no source says it has yet begun.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It did begin, maybe not per this source but per about a dozen in the article. Examples being US withdrawal from Turkish OP area, Ain Issa and Manbij [27]. So it did begin. KasimMejia (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That is what "failed verification" means, the source does not support the text. Change the source and then we can re-word it to your suggestion..Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Here you can to it yourself "*Start of complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria[28][Trump's Syria decision sparks scramble to safely remove US troops]" Dont use the quotes. KasimMejia (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Almost there but you removed the first source [29]. Now it's once again a failed verification. You should add the first source again. KasimMejia (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the one I have been saying does not support the text from the start. This is my last word on this matter, read wp:v.
It does support it? Didn't you even read it? I'll write for you since you missed it. "Trump said: A small footprint of United States forces will remain at At Tanf Garrison in southern Syria to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS. " So no other forces will remain in the SDF area.... KasimMejia (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Dude why are you not adding the source to it? KasimMejia (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This is absolutely my last word, ping me again and I will report you. "will" is future tense, it has not yet happened. Thus it does not support a claim that something is happening, only that it might. The infobox does not say it might happen it says it is happening, thus the source does not support the text. I suggest you read wp:tendentiousSlatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be labeled as "withdrawal of all soldiers (about 1000 left in Syria), except for a few dozen in certain areas..", or something like that? Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
When they have redeployed maybe, they have not yet been.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It should say either, start of US withdrawal from Syria except the Al-Tanf pocket. Or just start of US withdrawal from Northern Syria. KasimMejia (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Daily mapEdit

What is the source for this? Looks very ORy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And I may well have been right, as this [[30]] does not support what wee show as the Oct 16 situation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a good map source that is almost real-time updated [31]. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeni SafakEdit

I honestly don't believe anything by Yeni Safak should be used since its a pro-AKP media outlet known for its fake news and also anti-semitism among other things. (see Yeni_Şafak#Other_disinformation_incidents) --Semsurî (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We can change the sources, but Yeni Şafak article looks like a witch-hunt. Say which one, I can try to change it. Beshogur (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
No worse then most of the involved media.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose the entree of bigotry with a side of misinformation is not as bad as the entree of misinformation with the side bigotry we get with some of the other journals involved, like, Sabah, with this real gem (translate it, it's about a US plot to turn Turkey gay with chemical bombs, because, you know, that's where gay people come from) [[32]]. If you want Turkish news, Hurriyet is better. It is also essentially pro-AKP nowadays but it still behaves like a serious organization run by professionals, not like Yeni Safak or Sabah who just make up crap. --Calthinus (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Issue with daily map.Edit

The map implies that Assad's forces are occupying SDF territory although that is not true. There is a current alliance between the SDF and SAA and SDF law still applies i reccomend changing the Red to an orange similar to how it is shows on Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

SDF and SAA have joint military control of areas, and SDC has political control, so I agree, it makes no sense to show it as solely SAA territory. Orange would be the best solution, as that is what is used on our own SCW map for SAA-SDF areas. -Thespündragon 00:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nate Hooper: Pali Upadhyay (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work to change it to orange. It might take a few days though. Nate Hooper (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The original source of 80,000 Turkish soldiers seems to be Yeni Safak? So maybe it would be better to cite Yeni Safak than parlamentohaber?Edit "Russian Press: “Operation will be managed from Şanlıurfa and Kilis. The troops will enter more than 10 points simultaneously. There are 80 thousand troops on the border with Turkey."

I searched "80,000 soldiers" in Russian and found this source: "The fears of the US military are not in vain: according to information from open sources, an eighty-thousand-strong ground force grouping and more than a thousand pieces of equipment are concentrated on the border."

So hopefully the open source is searchable in the internet. I searched "80,000 soldiers" in Turkish and found these sources: "Turkey has made all necessary preparations for the biggest cross-border operation in the country's history, into Syria's Manbij and east of the Euphrates river, pro-government daily Yeni Şafak reported on Monday." Some 80,000 Turkish soldiers are ready for the new operation in areas controlled by the Syrian-Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), according to the news outlet. "Accordingly, the 500-kilometer line in the border area and the southern axis of Münbic's operation will begin with 80,000 people will participate in the operation. These figures, Turkey has carried out over 40 thousand people in 1974, the Cyprus Peace Operation means to be a larger operation."

Maybe Yeni Safak is the "open source" cited by the "Russian press"? It is at least cited by ahvalnews. Even if Yeni Safak isn't reliable (aligned with the AKP), it would surely be a better source than "parlamentohaber", which is openly relying on second-hand information without specifying sources. In any case, I could imagine the AKP leaking this kind of information to AKP-aligned outlets like yenisafak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no way 80,000 soldiers participating this operation. This operation does not include conscripts like others. Turkey barely has over 100k professionals, that'll make 80 percent. Beshogur (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The Argentine army for example was a conscript army when it took the Falklands, so I don't see why not: (ctlF "conscript")

Also, Turkish conscripts do take part in anti-insurgency operations (although they've been replaced with professionals more and more in recent times):

Even if they did throw 80,000 professionals into Syria, the other 20,000 would still be plenty to lead 150,000 conscripts elsewhere in Turkey. (In times of war Finland plans to lead 280,000 conscripts with just 8,000 professionals.)
Turkish Army never used conscripts in Syrian operations. Provide a source if they did. Beshogur (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've self reverted it back to unknown. KasimMejia (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Marxist Leninist Communist PartyEdit

@Pali Upadhyay: Can you please revert your edit here [33]? The marxist leninist communist party along with other radical leftist groups are a direct part of Rojava and are included under the title Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria I'll give more information on that, here is their umbrella battalion that includes the MLC International Freedom Battalion they are already included not under support but directly under Rojava, since they are already involved in the fight. KasimMejia (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Yeah, I'm looking into it, you seem to be right. Anyways if they are included as part of NES, the MLKP casualties shouldn't be listed separately from the SDF. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like IFB comes under direct command of the SDF so they could also be listed as Allies alongside NES while all their casualties can be folded under a single banner. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pali Upadhyay: You can remove that casualty from the section and replace them all under Rojava flag if you want. I wasn't the one to add it. Nevertheless IFB is not a part of SDF true yet it is a part of Rojava. So it should be included as one, or as separate SDF and IFB. But its best to keep it under one side Rojava I believe. KasimMejia (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: For the time being, I'm keeping the IBF as separate from Rojava since it doesn't seem to be under the political control of NES, some of them seem to have a presence in other countries and a lot of links to far left movements and insurgencies beyond Rojava. I'd like other people to weigh in on this though. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pali Upadhyay: Then you should list it as IFB right under AANES, its not a support but direct participation. And not only MLCP but all of IFB. KasimMejia (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you already did that. KasimMejia (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The MLKP is a Turkish, not Kurdish organization, but as it is a part of the IFB in Rojava, it can be listed under it's umbrella. The IFB itself belongs in the order of battle, as it is an organization fighting for the SDF. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the IFB is an ally of the SDF, not a part of it. So, ideally, it should be listead as an organization fighting for (instead of supporting) the AANES, but not a part of the SDF. And I agree that this goes for not only the MLKP, but the entire IFB. Goodposts (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansingEdit

Several sources are writing about ethnic cleansing during the turkish operation. Should we not include this aspect and reflect it in the Wikipedia article?[1][2][3][4][5] (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Given this (mainly) seems to be hyperbole from Netyy no not really.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
On one hand, if it's published by reputable sources (which they are) and is relevant to the article, (which it is) it definitely deserves to be included. On the other- this is going to open a huge can of worms, as that definition is vehemently opposed by Turkey and it's allies. So, insted, as a neutral and compromise variant, instead of adding that "the offensive is part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing", it should instead be listed as "According to XYZ sources, the offensive has allegedly included elements of ethnic cleansing against the Kurdish minority". In doing so, Wikipedia itself avoids making claims as to wether or not this is true and leaves it to the reader to form his own conclusions on wether or not ethnic cleansing is taking place, based on the provided citations. This would be a WP:NPOV-compliant method of including it and will conveniently avoid an edit war. So I'd say - add it to the article, but make sure to include information as to who has defined the operation this way. Goodposts (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think if this goes into the page, I'd advise whoever to raise it in this thread first, so as to come to an agreement on how to present the material. I will certainly if in the future I decide to write it (I personally don't see a place for it on the page at the present moment -- but the situation may develop further).--Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Almost all of those stories are opinion/letter pieces, not news or facts. Netty was already covered in the Reactions section. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Autonomous Administration of North and East SyriaEdit

@Applodion: Why are we calling SDF by this name when there is no source calling them by this? I suggest you revert your edit here [34], find a citation that mentions this name or rename it to SDF. KasimMejia (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What? SDF is the military, "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" is the proto-state. Turkey is fighting the SDF, yes, but also the International Freedom Battalion, the local police and volunteers. The latter do not operate under the SDF umbrella, but as part of the "Autonomous Administration". Applodion (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well then TFSA should be called the same manner, Syrian Interim Gov. Otherwise its not neutral, see WP:NPOV. KasimMejia (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This has been discussed before. We are supposed to use what most sources commonly refer to them as. So let's please settle this now and just use SFD. (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I support SDF being used. KasimMejia (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I am neutral on usage of SDF vs AA-NES, but I have added two citations for the AA-NES being the party involved, per the request above. -Thespündragon 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Somebody added a source so its fine now. KasimMejia (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I looked at the sources, they state SFD, which is what most sources commonly refers to them as. So that's what should be used. But this is my final say, and I won't press it further. (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The given sources clearly name the AANES as party in the conflict. See for example Times: "In its call for a general mobilization, the local civilian Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria [...]". Applodion (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also relevant that it is not solely the SDF, the AA-NES's military, that is involved in the defense, but also AA-NES security forces that are not a part of the SDF, namely the ASAYISH/ISF and the Civil Defense Forces, see the Order of Battle page. -Thespündragon 13:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Then I suggest a compromise. Adding the SFD below. (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should note of the fact of that IFB is distinct from the SDF and AA-NES security forces in that it doesn't come under the direct authority of the AA-NES but rather is an independent organization operating in conjecture with the AA-NES forces so it is probably more relevant to present them as allies to rather than under AA-NES. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not just say the political bodies involved, and leave the "volunteers" to the OB?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I don't think it's much a neutrality issue to include the TFSA/SNA instead of the Interim Government since the latter isn't de facto operating under the former even though it de jure is affiliated to it, not to mention the NFL is also de jure affiliated to the Interim Government but isn't participating in the conflict. Though I think it's more appropriate to list the TFSA by its official name as the Syrian National Army as a matter of neutrality. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to change terminology. This word soup [35] is much less common than Rojava [36] by a factor of about 1,000. People say "Rojava". We should too. Also, "autonomous"? No, it is de facto independent and according to Assad de jure part of Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Including statements by President TrumpEdit

Should we include: 1.) The statements from President Trump labeling the Rojava administration "no angels" and making reference to the PKK, who he called "probably" worse than ISIS? That's a major foreign policy change that is notable enough for the lead paragraphs. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could also paste from Wikimedia the letter that President Trump sent to President Erdogan? ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been talked about. The lede is not the place for Trump's personal opinions about the PKK, their and/or Rojavas absence in Normandy, fact checker disproven claims, or whatever. If and when it establishes notability, then we might consider adding it to the lede. Not everything from a president's mouth is the *most important* aspect to discuss.--Calthinus (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Countries against Turkey sanctionsEdit

I've only found one but I thought it might be a good idea to keep tabs on countries against sanctions on Turkey. --Abbazorkzog (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" page.