Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria/Archive 3

He's not commanding the operation, or in command why is here there? Beshogur (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

He is the commander in chief. KasimMejia (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We should only use the sourced and actual commanders of the operation. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Heads of state who are commander in chief are typically included.--Calthinus (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Commander in chief is only if the country is in war status. Turkey isn't. Look at Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch, he's definitely not included. Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a war, quacks like a war...--Calthinus (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. They are included in the overall war, not for specific operations. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish constitution article 92: If the country is subjected to sudden armed aggression, while the Grand National Assembly of Turkey is adjourned or in recess, and it thus becomes imperative to decide immediately on the use of the armed forces, the President of the Republic can decide on the use of the Turkish Armed Forces.^[1] Beshogur (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So then should not Assad be in the infobox?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ali kaman: Please revert your edit here. Ras al-Ayn is not captured yet and when it is please add it with a source. KasimMejia (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please revert this edit because I don't want to violate 1RR. KasimMejia (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be settled. El_C 11:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does the infobox still say it has been captured if (17th oct) today it is still being fought for? Yet again the "status" seems to be dubious.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The source (SOHR) has actually consistently said that the town is either contested or back under SDF control or contested again. The problem is some editors reinsert it as being captured (based on Turkish claims) without providing reliable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Provided to the infobox the current status of Ras al-Ayn, as per SOHR. Its besieged. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Added additional source that its contested as well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The 52 towns captured needs altering, as that included Ras al-Ayn (and also, given its age) the two villages recaptured yesterday. Or (at least) do not put it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree figure needs updating, although SOHR hasn't provided a new number the last few days. Maybe add the date as of which 52 were captured or something like that, so readers would know its an old one. EkoGraf (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Just leave out information that is either widely out of date or actually false in the first place. Instead use only information form third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@EkoGraf:@Slatersteven:Agree it should be taken out until its fully captured. Also what is this pre operation casualty box even about? No citation what so ever, can we take that out too? KasimMejia (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There needs to =be more then that this may not be an isolated incident. The infobox should not contain this kind of error, and until we only use fully independent sources for claims in the infobox it will continue to include errors of this kind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the infobox @Yug: has placed an uncited box to the left of background section. I don't understand what this box is supposed to represent and can't see a citation for it. Yug, can you take it out or explain please? KasimMejia (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What did this "Agree it should be taken out until its fully captured." refer to?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh you mean that, yes I referred to RasAlAyn. What do you mean neutral sources in the infobox? Aren't they already neutral? All the info there is SOHR. KasimMejia (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So why did the infobox say Ras al-Ayn had been captured when it had not been? Can you not see why this raises doubts about anything in the infobox?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Lol why are you blaming me for it? I didn't add it, in fact asked for its removal #Ras al-Ayn since I couldnt because of 1RR. Whoever placed it did it via original research. KasimMejia (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How did I blame you? All I said was this would be avoidable if we used only the best sources we can find, totally involved ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR is reliable, original research is not reliable. KasimMejia (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR provided an updated number of areas captured today and confirmed Ras al-Ayn besieged and contested. Added to the infobox. The earlier addition of Ras al-Ayn as a captured town in the infobox was made by someone without providing a source and was contrary to the existing cited sources in the infobox, namely SOHR, which stated it was still being contested. So it was basically an unsourced POV/OR edit by someone. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I already did a revert today. Please don't add military groups to the infobox. Order of battle for the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, do it here! Beshogur (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The Syrian National Army is a military group which is present in the info box. I don't see the reasoning of NOT including military groups which can't otherwise be accurated represented through civilian bodies as is the case with the Syrian National Army and International Freedom Battalion. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

IFB shouldn't be there either Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is being discussed here. El_C 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This [] seems to be saying fighting may is still be occurring in al-Manajir.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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]} 51.174.7.31 (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)

It doesn't fit the definition of ethnic cleansing see WP:Terrorist.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It does fit the definition of ethnic cleansing.Alhanuty (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why it's written like this? Isn't here double standarts. People are talking like Turkey killed them on purpose and SDF killing them as collateral damage. Beshogur (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to suggest that is because at least some of the Syrian deaths are due to gunfire, all the ones in turkey are due to shelling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you know it's from gunfire? Provide some source please. Beshogur (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I quote our article "Seven civilians were killed in Syria by Turkish forces in the Tal Abyad area including three killed by Turkish snipers according to SOHR."....Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"Halt in fighting within five days would allow Kurdish fighters to withdraw beyond a designated safe zone", its not happened yet, and as the SDF was not party to the discussions its not biding on them, hence may not even be implemented.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This was admitly strange, considering the U.S. no longer actively supports the Kurds on the ground and since the SFD and Syrian Army is winning back areas. We'll just have to wait and see what the Kurds, Syrians, and Russians will have to say about this. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the place for such discussions, but whilst the status may be" USA and Turkey agree a ceasefire" this is all we can say, as no one else has agreed to its provisions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm merely stating that the article is already updated to reflect as if there is an actual agreed upon agreement between all parties. We should hold off on that until there is more clear information. The Turkish Foreign Minister has even stated that there is no ceasefire and the BBC confirms the SFD was not present for the negotiations and have not yet commented on the developments. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In part “status”,reuters news agency’s report about the truce doesn’t say that SDF hand over the area of retreat to turkey! Soran8552002 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Done . --Cold Season (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What? How did the Per Turkey killed soldiers go up to 6 and FSA rebels go up to 71? Why are you using a non Turkish source for this. No where does Anadolu Agency report that (as USnews source claim). This is just very wrong. The amount of Turkish soldiers killed till now is 4 (per Turkey) and it should be changed to that. It doesn’t make sense to use non Turkish sources for that and definitly not to use wrong sources. Where are the ID’s of those +2 killed soldiers? Can someone revert that edit? Gal17928 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

‘’Turkish officials claim that 6 Turkish soldiers died till now’’. Sorry but this is not an reliable source in any kind of way. Who are those ‘’officials’’? Neither the Turkish defense ministery nor the president or any other Turkish media has announced the death of two more Turkish soldiers. This USnews source just has so many wrong things in it. I added back the Turkish sources which are far more reliable in terms of ‘’Per Turkey’’ and the sources are much more clear rather than a claim from an ‘’official’’ Gal17928 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

To make it more clear for the rest. 4 Turkish soldiers were killed so far as a part of operation peace spring. Another 2 Turkish soldiers died near Azaz in Northern Syria but this was a part of Operation Olive Branch which is still ongoing. Its most likely that the Turkish official in the USnews source has counted those 2 soldiers up which makes it a total of 6 (for those who don’t get it, 4 soldiers in operation peace spring + 2 soldiers in operation Olive Branch = 6 killed in total.

Its not right to add those 2 soldiers into an operation which is a seperate one Gal17928 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Associated Press" is considered a highly reliable 3rd-party source by Wikipedia, always has been, regardless of what you or me think about it. At this point, Turkish media outlets, as outlets of one of the belligerents, are considered far less reliable than those such as AP, AFP, Reuters, etc... Same goes for SDF media outlets (not really reliable). Also, this is the English Wikipedia, and it requires us to use English sources whenever possible and available. PS You also doubted the figure of 71 dead FSA, even though Turkish Anadolu reported it as well . EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean with that but I just wanted to make it clear and more detailed. We had this discussion before about the 4+2 killed soldiers near Azaz (part of Op OB) which some sources (including USnews/Ap and Sohr) included in the total death toll which made it 6 Gal17928 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I doubted the numbers for the Turkish soldiers which Anadolu (nor any other Turkish source) did not report (6 killed instead of 4). Made a mistake there at the begin Gal17928 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The figure of 6 was added since English-language sources are regularly reporting the figure of six (counting the two from the Olive Branch region here). And actually, some Turkish sources are also reporting six soldier deaths . But regardless, like I said in the edit summary, I'm not going to argue over this. Let it be four "per Turkey". The note (which was previously agreed upon among editors) has been left that the two are being counted by SOHR, even though not officially by Turkey for this operation. Since it will be like this, I added the two deaths to Turkey's official toll for the Olive Branch operation, instead of this one. EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the part “ status “ the reuters report about the truce says that mike pence agreed with retreat of SDF fighters but doesn’t mention 32 km retreat which is the turkey goal. That could be the safe zone suggested by USA which had 5-14 km depth.Soran8552002 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

DisagreeI 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. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

There's already an ongoing discussion on this here: . 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)

"No mainstream media outlet does"? What on earth are you talking about? the NYTimes and Rojava -- 16,300 results Reuters and Rojava -- 35,400 results, list goes on... --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote this but it is wrong or misleading. The deal was first of all reached by Turkey and US so how is Turkey gonna reject it? According to the source Turkey says, they will pause the operation for 5 days to allow SDF withdrawal from the designated 32km safe zone from Manbij to Iraq border. After 5 days Turkey says if they indeed withdrew the operation will end and Turkey will enter the area. And if withdrawal is not complete Turkey will continue the operation until reaching this goal. This is the deal reached between US and Turkey per the source. Where as SDF partially rejected the deal not wholly, SDF commander Mazlum Kobane says they will withdraw from the 32km area between Tall Abyad and Ras al-Ayn but not from the other areas. Adjusted the article accordingly. KasimMejia (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Cautious calm prevailed at the east of Euphrates, we cannot say this an imply its true for the whole of the 18th, its not over yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

[], so no cautious calm has not prevailed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I already mentioned the clashes at Ras al-Ayn. SOHR says there is a cautious calm except for minor clashes at Ras al-Ayn. The ceasefire seems to have gone into affect midnight last night local time. Haven't seen reports of airstrikes since then. I assume SDF is shooting at Turkish SNA troops and they are shooting back at Ras al-Ayn. KasimMejia (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

and it is still to early to say this, its not even been 12 hours yet into the 18th. Anything can happen in the next half hour.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

True, but if anything happens we can change it to, caution calm prevailed in the morning but then...... happened. If it happens. KasimMejia (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Or we change it now to reflect the fact its not done and dusted. We are misleading the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. KasimMejia (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to bring war crimes back to the attention of the editors of the Wikipedia article in light of new sources.^[1] 51.174.7.31 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

And this [].Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Can you please undo your revert here ? The reason those were there is because not all of EU nor all of the Arab League has condemned the action. In the paragraph above it says EU and Arab League condemned it and you just took out the exceptions, those who didn't condemn. Please self revert until consensus is reached on keeping those out. The countries are: Hungary for EU and Libya, Somalia and Qatar for Arab League who didn't condemn. KasimMejia (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, Hungary did not block the joint EU resolution. Nor did Libya (a government in the middle of its own civil war), Qatar (a pariah among Arab states) or Somalia (not even Arab and also a government of dubious actual control of its territory) block the joint Arab League resolution. So how exactly does this collection of paper tigers and pariahs matter for the lede?--Calthinus (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Calling those countries by names does not change the fact that they did not condemn the action. The lede says EU and Arab League condemn and we are required to write those who didn't. Hungary did not condemn the operation. And neither did UN recognized government of Libya or Somalia (which is a Arab League member) nor Qatar. So please self revert. Otherwise the lede makes readers believe all members of EU and Arab League condemned the operation. KasimMejia (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Never said it did. What I said is that they didn't matter. And your last sentence is partially correct in fact, though not in the distributive sense, because both of those organizations collectively condemned the operation, and none of Turkey's alleged defenders within them vetoed the resolution.--Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The article didn't say they vetoed it either. It just said these particular countries did not condemn the operation which is correct. So not all EU or Arab League condemned it. That's why it shouldn't be removed. Doesn't matter how much the countries matter or not. We cannot say a whole union or league did something when some members didn't. KasimMejia (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it did "and vetoed the EU declaration".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It said for Hungary that, it initially vetoed but later agreed. Which is what happened. 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Hungary was originally blocking it it doesn't want those Mooslim migrants and would rather they be resettled in a warzone, and admitted as much... but then it changed it's position-- i.e. to the German weekly which refers to several EU diplomats, Hungary was the only member who issued a veto while all other EU countries agreed. This resulted in the delay of the issue of the declaration which has eventually been accepted – with Hungary’s support – in the evening. Hungary's personal stance continues to be that it supports the operation as long as migrants end up in Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well a non EU country could not veto an EU choice. And if it eventually agreed its rather irrelevant it did not at first. Its the lede, only major relevant parts of the article should be summarized there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused, Hungary is in the EU, but I think we agree?--Calthinus (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

And what is the current EU stance?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the reactions article, EU as whole condemned except for Hungary. So while it did not veto it also refused to condemn I guess. As for the three Arab League countries, they also refused to condemn. Yet when the article says EU and Arab League condemned it makes it seem as these 4 countries did too. KasimMejia (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede is for summarizing the MAJOR parts of the article. Whilst it can be argued that the EU issuing a formal condemnation is pretty major, Hungary not doing so is not. However if the EU's reaction in not a major part of the article it should not even be in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

When people think of those organizations, they do not think of any of these four countries, to be frank. They are all peripheral. Someone who is interested in their stances will go to the Reactions to page, assuming it is not deleted.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the fact that (for example) Hungary has not agreed to the condemnation it not really relevant to the EU's official stance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think they do think of them. Both Libya and Somalia are huge countries. It's important that they didn't condemn. Also important that Hungary a EU member refused to condemn either, as for Qatar, there is no reason not the include it since its another non condemning Arab League member. And last but not least, we cannot give false statements and leave these countries out. I initially made a small note about them but @EkoGraf: moved it to the lede because as I learned after his edit, we cannot make notes like that. KasimMejia (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If a statement was made by a body then its not false to say they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It was not made by the Arab League body. Acc to the source in the article only the head of Arab League condemned it, since Libya Somalia and Qatar refused. As for EU the source doesn't mention a body wide statement neither. I once again suggest the mention of opposing countries. KasimMejia (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but this does [] "The EU condemns Turkeyʼs unilateral military...".Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, though I still think Hungary should be mentioned as non condemning, I don't see a source saying Hungary did in fact condemn it though there are many about its veto's. Also the Arab League didn't even leave a body wide statement apparently. KasimMejia (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? we do not even mention this in the body. And besides this was issued in the name of the EU. As to the AL, separate issue lets get one thing sorted out at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's not Hungary then but do add the 3 Arab League members not condemning. KasimMejia (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? Do they matter?--Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I said many times, we cannot write false statements even if things don't matter. KasimMejia (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede is already overly bloated, I would suggest removing the Arab League totally as its not clear if this was a league wide condemnation or not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best thing to do. There are still many in the Arab League who did condemn. I suggest just writing that Libya, Somalia and Qatar did not condemn. It's just one sentence. KasimMejia (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It was a league wide condemnation. Organizations do not equal the sum of their members (and certainly not a sum with equal weighting of each). They are distinct entities as well. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No source states this a was league wide condemnation. Source only says the head of the League condemned it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can find it was AL foreign ministers, in fact this seems to have been made by The League's secretary general, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. So its not the same as the EU issuing a formal press release.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok lets take it out fully than as suggested by Slatersteven. Arab League doesn't seem to have condemned it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Media discusses it as an "Arab League statement", not one made individually by members []. So do we. There is also this separate "communiqué" they made later, see here from (Qatari :) ) Al Jazeera : The Arab League called for the United Nations Security Council to take measures to force Turkey to halt its military offensive and "immediately" withdraw its forces from Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It says that "Two member countries, Qatar and Somalia, expressed reservations about the communique. " meaning they abstained from it. Guess we write that those two did not condemn. Still not a AL wide statement. But I'll be going AFK now. My last proposal for the solution is some sort of mention that this was not an Arab League statement supported by all. Or just take it out fully, goodnight. KasimMejia (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not say "the Arab League" but instead "an Arab League statement condemned"? Night. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually it does not mean that, it means they only partially agreed with it. To have obstained they would have had to have said "we wholly disagree with this". This is why wp:v is so important.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion some time ago on that part of the lede. It was achieved soon although it was still ongoing, though I have not had time to start with it again. In my view, that part of the lede is patent and unbalanced POV. Why? I agree that those countries that have supported Turkey's actions are not strong (though Qatar is an important actor in the Middle East region: lots of money -> considerable influence). However, since there are listed several entities that have condemned the offensive, then there should be noted that a few countries have backed Turkey's position. Or at the least, Russia's mixed stance should be included. Otherwise, no matter what nightmare the offensive is, its coverage on Wikipedia keeps another POV issue. The lede says that several entities have condemned the offensive, but nowehere does it say that others have been less condemning/"neutral" or have expressed support. That the lede is a summary should not be interpreted that it should be a summary of only one stance on the subject. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 No country that matters has supported the op (Qatar has fallen on some hard times, so it's clout is not what it used to be, though it still has Al Jazeera). As for the two big question marks that do matter, there's the US and Russia, the first of which has given a number of contradictory statements (in no small part because different parts of the government vehemently disagree) and the second of which has been coy. And there's China's stance. If you want to write a sentence about those go ahead. I have tried and given up on something I think would be adequate for the lede on those two. --Calthinus (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That Qatar has conflicts with Saudi Arabia ans a few others does not make it lack sufficient influence. Also, why does India's position matter more than Qatar's or Pakistan's? However, what matters in the end is that countries that expressed opinions are divided, the very majority are against, some "neutral" and a few others have supported Turkey. I am not going to make additions to the article, I just wanted to say that I see that part of the lede as countering with NPOV rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

India is considered an "emerging great power" with a significant influence in the Middle East. Pakistan is significant but I don't think it passes the threshold necessary, especially given its isolation. Qatar's "clout" really has taken a hit, it's much less of a thing[].--Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We could however include the Turkic League's position.--Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not plan to make more than one or two comments here. Anyways, I am talking about NPOV: if the lede says that some countries have condemnded the offensive, it should also say that a few others have expressed "neutral" opinions or supported the offensive. My point is that the offensvie has attracted various reactions, not to make an analysis whether X or Y country has gained or lost enough influence to be added to the lede (Brazil too is considered by some as an emerging super power. Brazil, China and Russia are not in the lede. India is. Qatar has influence and Pakistan is one of the most imortant Muslim countries. Anyways.). The way the content is written, it gives some limited impression that everyone is condemning the offensive. IMO, the most proper addition would be "The majority of the countries that have reacted to the offensive have condemned it, though others have expressed mixed or supportive opinions". However, other wordings (such as the one re the Turkic League) would still be good. Even if that part of the lede is not changed at all, it is not a major concern for me. A few sentences on an Wikipedia article will not change the suffering of innocent people or put an end to the conflict, unfortunately. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that the lede is better now. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We already have turkey deny the use of chemical weapons, why do we need it twice? Would it not make more sense to just say "turkey has denied the allegations" once?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do we have it twice? It's written once that Turkey denied the accusation. KasimMejia (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a section about Turkish denials, and then a separate "but denied the accusation" in the paragraph above. So why do we need Turkish denials in both paragraphs?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Where? "Kurdish medics have claimed that a number of children have chemical burns, the UN has announced it is investigating alleged use of white phosphorus by Turkey. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the UK’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear regiment, said of wounds he had been shown pictures of: “The most likely culprit is white phosphorus”. Turkey has also been accused of using Napalm by the SDF but denied the accusation.[267][268][269] Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar in response to the allegations stated that SDF was planning to use chemical weapons to blame it on Turkey and stated that it was widely known that Turkish armed forces did not have any chemical weapons in their inventory.[270] Turkish media also criticized Foreign Policy magazine of using a photo of tires burning as evidence of white phosphorus.[271]" I see it only once. KasimMejia (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Errr

Kurdish medics have claimed that a number of children have chemical burns, the UN has announced it is investigating alleged use of white phosphorus by Turkey. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the UK’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear regiment, said of wounds he had been shown pictures of: “The most likely culprit is white phosphorus”. Turkey has also been accused of using Napalm by the SDF but denied the accusation.[267][268][269]

Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar in response to the allegations stated that SDF was planning to use chemical weapons to blame it on Turkey and stated that it was widely known that Turkish armed forces did not have any chemical weapons in their inventory.[270] Turkish media also criticized Foreign Policy magazine of using a photo of tires burning as evidence of white phosphorus.[271]

Is how it is written, one paragraph about the claims, and one about the denials. Yet we have a Turkish denial also in the first paragraph (it should be in the second).Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok you can move it to the second paragraph. KasimMejia (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I reworded it to make sense.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The pro-Kurdish protest in Berlin is back as a picture. I want it out. I don't think we should be using images this way.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree it should be out. Because a single picture can not define how everybody feels about it. We can display a similar image of pro-Turkish protests and give the image of everyone supporting the offensive. KasimMejia (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue used to be worse before. Image choices should be of the major events, not what some people in Berlin think, which comes off as either self-congratulating Westerners (see we're not all evil, we care!!!) or bandwagoning. The pic does have a place on the "Reactions to" page where we could also have the pro-Turkish demonstrations in probably Bosnia. Imho. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In 18 October 2019 ANF news agency reported that “The Turkish military helicopter which Turkish officials said had crashed turned out to have been downed by SDF fighters.” https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/people-s-resistance-day-10-live-blog-38534 Soran8552002 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait for third-party source confirmation.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We have not for many other things.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be worth mentioning that U.S. forces in Syria are withdrawing to Western Iraq. 85.165.161.112 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.232.27 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Huh? KasimMejia (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems a false addition. The source only mentions Russia patrolling in between the two to prevent clashes. This doesn't necessarily mean it is supporting the fighting sides in their fight against Turkey. I think it should be taken out until a source specifically states Russia is in fact supporting them to fight against Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Beshogur (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

SDF Commander-in-Chief Gen Mazloum Kobani to al-Arabia TV: Russia supports Turkey and wants to protect its interests^[1] Beshogur (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support removal, Russia only took over US bases and patrolling streets, it's not fighting directly or indirectly (arming Kurds) to fight Turkey. I don't know why there's a trend in wikipedia to keep adding countries that have only minimal relationship with each other as (supported by) to indicated an alliance to one group or as an enemy to another. Graull (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently does not cover the protests against the Turkish offensive in any way, either here or the reactions page. Some of these protests are fairly significant -- one in Paris had ["more than 20,000 people"] as per JP; in Cologne, 10,000 people. What does everyone think about where to put this info? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The reactions section seems to have taken on a thematic structure, so that's probably a good place. --Cold Season (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made these into one thread, as per the wishes of @Slatersteven: Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sure these will become a controversy on the page, and I'm undecided, so I figured I'd start the convo here-- what should we do with this? [] --Calthinus (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This ethnic cleansing/displacement thing is appearing a lot in commentaries, but I'm not sure what to do with it. A section on impact on population / demographics? The article is missing that aspect. --Cold Season (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a section on war crimes, that is what this would be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be included. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I see, most sources (like above) as of now take the cautious stance that the current situation may pave the way to ethnic cleansing. Therefore my suggestion. --Cold Season (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update with news today including Russia in infobox. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Is way to long, it should be a few paragraphs. It needs trimming of all the detail.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, first of all the second paragraph has no citations and should be taken out. Also the paragraph related to ISIS prisoners (#5) and reactions (#6) should be taken out since they are not a direct part of the events in the operation but backlash. KasimMejia (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede does not have to have cites, it is only supposed to summarize the body of the article (all of which should already be cited).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the last two paragraphs about the cease-fire can be combined and summarized. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Its a start. Anyone disagree?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, also don't think it'll be enough so you can take out 5th and 6th paragraphs too. KasimMejia (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The lede is still too long despite the merge. Anyone object to deleting paragraph 5 and 6? KasimMejia (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I object, this is important and relevant information.Oldperson (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree I have just made one change that seems to be agreed upon.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Agree the lede is way too bloated. It should simply summarize the rest of the article. Way too many paragraphs-worth of info that can be summed up in two or three paragraphs. RopeTricks (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• It still needs to be made significantly shorter. No long discussions of controversies in the lead please (the release of ISIS prisoners, the Syrian government initially objected, but then ..., etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest taking out few repeating references that's used to cite overly-specific details in the lead, as citations are not a must in the lead if it's cited in the body (per WP:LEAD) and it results in ease of editing towards a summary-style lead. --Cold Season (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So we are agreed that the controversies section can be shortened?Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Yes. KasimMejia (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia has removed the link to the Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) from the See Also section on this page, without discussion. He has also nominated it for deletion. This is probably the main battle of the entire operation, so its clearly relevant to this page. I would ask for a consensus that it is put back in the see also section. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support adding back the link. The Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) article definitely needs some fixing, but that's no reason to not include it. Here's the revision where it's removed, for context: . David O. Johnson (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks David O. Johnson - any other opinions, one way or the other? Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we have two votes to have it reinclueded, and no votes for it to be removed, so I will take that as a consensus and put the link back in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There is too much information here similar to the lede. Considering taking out comment #2 about SAA fighting, since didn't have a big impact on the conflict. Only 5 SAA killed per SOHR. Also consider taking out comment #6 about Russian Patrol, again not a significant development. And finally consider merging comment #4 and #5 about ceasefires. In total there'll be 4 comments. 1st one Turkish gains, 2nd town SAA has entered. 3rd governorates US withdrew. and 4th ceasefire. Any objections? KasimMejia (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not know what is and is not significant until its all over. Anything in that infobox could change in an hours time.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've condensed the two SAA/Russian tags under the ongoing section of the infobox to just link to a separate article on the Russo-Syrian-Turkish deal in Northern Syria. TBH, though, it is still too long and detailed. But, as the editor above me stated, we can't know what is significant until it's already in the past. Goodposts (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand why Kasim deleted the paragraph here he says in his summary that it is unverifiable article. I checked the article and it's citation and do not at all agree with his assessment @KasimMejia:. Please clarify, before I revertOldperson (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to know the answer to this question. Goodposts (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this operation already over after the two ceasefires with Russia and the US? In addition, it was mentioned after the 2019 Sochi agreement that this agreement would "end Turkish military operations in Syria" . To me it looks similar to the 2018 Sochi agreement also between Turkey & Russia. Maybe it is an idea to create a separate article about the new agreement so we can go into detail about this new deal and finish this article up. Turkey will only resume the operation if Russia does not fulfill it's promises made in the agreement, so we can always reopen this article as a phase 2 if necessary. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, operation stopped since 17 Oct per Turkish statement. It has the possibility to resume on 29 Oct 6pm local time unless withdrawal completed or ceasefire not extended. KasimMejia (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree? The operation didn't stop. It does stop when Turkish Defence Ministry announce 'it stopped'. Please don't bring new rules, check other articles of Turkish operations in Syria. Olive Branch didn't stopped, it's still ongoing for example. Beshogur (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Def Min said operation is paused on 17 Oct Turkish Def Min also says operation can continue if withdrawal not completed, so on 29 Oct has the possibility to restart. KasimMejia (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't mean operation has finished yet. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What does mean the operation has finished then? KasimMejia (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

When it's declared by Turkey as 'the operation is finished'. Also the clashes are still going on. Beshogur (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Its halted, but the Turks have made it clear that if they do not get what they want when they want it it will start up again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The operation is on hold, not over, as per Turkey itself. Plus, fighting is still going on, although sporadically at the moment. In any case, until they say its over, or 3rd party sources report it, the operation is still very much ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And why on earth is the status changed to "Turkish victory"? 51.174.7.31 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

They did almost get what they wanted. Except (of course) fighting still seems to be going on, so its not over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Operation declared over by Turkey, though I agree clashes ongoing, however clashes are still going between SDF and Turkey in Operation Euphrates Shield area too. I assume the Operation is over, not the conflict. KasimMejia (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither you or Turkey are an RS, RS say there is still fighting ergo its not over according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be Turkish victory? KasimMejia (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Because there is still fighting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

YPG lost huge amount of territory directly to Turkey, and lot of areas to SAA. This should be definitive Turkish victory. Either you put "SDF victory", which is impossible, "stalemate" which isn't the case right now, or "Turkish victory", choice is yours. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Or we leave it until the fighting is over, and we see who gained the most (right now it seems to be the Assad regime, who have regained control of far more territory then Turkey has taken). Also it depends on how you define huge.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How is Assad gaining his own country a victory? It could be ridiculous by putting "SAA victory" while the battle was between Turkey and SDF. SDF is clearly loser of this operation. Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Because he has regained control of territory he had lost to rebels or ISIS, you do understand how civil wars work? I agree the SDF were the losers, what does SDF stand for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The move discussion at Talk:Rojava just closed, and after not one but three discussions over how to title the article now that the official name is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, there is no consensus to use the NES or AANES name because "Rojava" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Despite that, the name "Rojava" doesn't appear once in the article (the only ctrl+f results being in related templates).

Considering that we tend not to use other long-form official names in the main infobox (e.g. "Syria" rather than "Syrian Arab Republic"), I think it would be appropriate to at least mention the common name somewhere, but I thought it would be better to start by opening this thread here so we can agree on which names are preferable in which parts of the article.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Previous consensus in this page in particular stated that the infobox should use the name used in reliable sources,(as multiple organizations are known by multiple names) and here we have two citations for the Northeast Syrian Admin. being the belligerent. If we change it to Rojava, we should have reliable sources describing that as the belligerent. An alternative solution to solve the problem of the long name would be the officially used short-form name, North and East Syria, not requiring changing the sources. We could also use the military of the region as used in the pages of the war against ISIL, the Syrian Democratic Forces, grabbing sources from elsewhere in the article.-Thespündragon 23:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it the common name?Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using the most commonly cited name. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's policy, the most commonly cited name is the one we use. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the only question remaining is whether or not there is a "local" common name. Thespoondragon's concern appears to be that when referring to this specific conflict, sources are apparently using the NES name (I've yet to check, though). However, many discussions at Talk:Rojava found that Rojava is the common name, not NES/AANES. I'd personally like to think that this means that we should be calling it "Rojava" on other articles, too (including this one).  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Any claim put in Wikipedias voice must to be a third party RS. Any claim sourced to an involved media source must be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The sources provided in section “ result “ do not mention that 4220 kilometers squares have been captured by turkey in its recent operation. Indeed according to turkey itself, the whole area captured in operation peace spring has been 2200 km squares.

https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/president-erdogan-wants-us-to-hand-over-ypg-leader-to-turkey-peace-spring-30471/amp

The figure 4220 possibly includes the whole area occupied by turkey such as “Afrin “ and “ Jarablus “ and “ al- bab” and other areas which had been occupied by turkey before operation “ peace spring “. Soran8552002 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ehm? The source says, "Şu ana kadar bölgede kontrolümüze geçen alan büyüklüğü 4 bin 220 kilometrekareye ulaştı", Erdogan's own words. Beshogur (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we need an independent third party RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look anything to discuss. Beshogur (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes there does, we are saying that a claim made by the Turkish president is true, if it is true third party RS would have repeated it as a fact, not an attributed claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR provided their own figure. Inserted both figures and attributed both claims. When there are conflicting claims we don't present one over the other as factual. Again, as per Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, we present all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello I am a user of Persian Wikipedia and I have translated parts of the article and had a question about the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria article. See Background and Deaths toll for Turkey border regions north of Syria Jan. 2018 - Sep. 2019, before 9 Oct. The 2019 offensive is said: It is not known if this activity is or not related to Syria's YPG and SDF, or from Turkey or Iraqi PKK. By Turkey does it mean the Turkish government or the PKK branch in Turkey. Mohammad bahrami cyruc (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)