Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Wikipedia open wikipedia design.

Party Leader/President[edit]

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)

References

Removing and rewriting the numbered list under Background → Turkish Motives[edit]

Should we not rewrite the excessive numbered list into a paragraph or two? 84.48.174.182 (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 Syria[edit]

@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 removed[edit]

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 proposed[edit]

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)

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. 51.174.7.31 (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.

Map[edit]

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 (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 [[1]] 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 [2]? 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 [[3]]. 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)

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)

Casualties as part of Operation Olive Branch[edit]

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)


This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Destek