I noticed that it got changed from the adopted seal to a de-facto flag which shows the seal on a white background; I personally think that if we're going to use a de-facto flag, it's best to use the most common one (the yellow-red-green tricolour version). I'll boldly add this change myself, but I expect that not everyone will agree with me, so I'll start this talk section before making the change to avoid any edit warring & to can follow the WP:BRD process. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The flag used to represent the entity(flag with seal) should be used, not the flag used to represent the political alliance governing it(tricolor). It is valid to use the TEV-DEM flag to represent the Administration(DFNS->NES) in infoboxes on events prior to late 2018, as the Administration had no official symbols. While the flag itself is not strictly official, it is used in official settings to represent the administration, and uses the Administration's official emblem. The flag of TEV-DEM is only ever used to represent TEV-DEM. -Thespündragon01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
After finding this graphic (that you created), I understand what you're saying now. If the TEV-DEM flag is used at all, it would make more sense to have it next to the YPG flag. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've decided that the best place to put the yellow-red-green flag is alongside the flags of the military wings (the YPG and YPJ). Hopefully this change wasn't inaccurate. Vanilla Wizard 💙04:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
In Rojava, the red-yellow-green tricolor is a very widely-used symbol, appearing pretty much everywhere in NES-held territory, although if we have to be technical, it is intended to represent the ruling coalition and not the NES as a whole. The NES doesn't officially have a flag. It sometimes uses it's emblem superimposed on a white background as a flag, and sometimes uses the flag of the Syrian Democratic Forces. With that said, the red-yellow-green tricolor is definitely a symbol very closely associated to Rojava and I don't think that it would be incorrect to use it per se. I do have to note however, that some pro-KDP groups in Rojava do not identify with that flag and instead use the Iraqi Kurdistan flag. Goodposts (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Vatan Partisi is leftist?
Vatan Partisi itself does not claim to be leftist. It claims to be Kemalist, the ideology of M. Kemal Ataturk. They are also not a part of Socialist International. Could someone please remove the leftist? It is also okay to remove Vatan Partisi comment altogether, as their latest election result is 0.23%. They are not representing any group in Turkish politics. 131.111.5.154 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the comment, as it is a Twitter comment by an insignificant political party, that is not referenced by any news articles. -Thespündragon01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't really a party to the offensive, but to answer the question - Vatan Partisi is definitely a left-wing political party, it was even strongly influenced by Maoism until recently, but has now adopted a more left-wing nationalist philosophy. Goodposts (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Flag salad
This article's flag salad has reached a bloated 45 entries, and now constitutes 58 percent of the text. Ridiculous, undue – and counterproductive for readers. As previously suggested, a prose summary of those reactions considered particularly trenchant or significant would be more helpful, and far more readable. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Vhstef, there is no good reason for that. You're sitting around here reverting without apparently knowing how this works, but with 100 live edits it is not surprising to see that. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Followed the convention of previous articles by splitting off the detailed reactions into a separate article. Reactions by parties directly involved may now be placed in this article, while the other article can contain the full and exhaustive list, without sacrificing readability. Goodposts (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
60,000 People fled
"60,000 people mostly Kurds have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment" which was changed to "According to The New York Times 60,000 Syrians have fled border towns."
Genuine mistake NPR source given does not state 60,000 people have fled. However i found a source to replace it. With the sources now being sufficient revert changes to:
60,000 people have fled border towns following Turkish bombardment.
I had source stating the majority of people fleeing where Kurdish however i can not currently find the link.
The U.N. refugee agency says tens of thousands of civilians in Syria are on the move to escape the fighting and seek safety amid a Turkish offensive into the area.
Thursday’s statement by UNHCR came a day after Turkish troops began a military operation against Kurdish fighters in Syria.
UNHCR called on parties to adhere to International Humanitarian Law, including providing access for aid agencies.
The agency said hundreds of thousands of civilians “in northern Syria are now in harm’s way. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must not be a target.”
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that more than 60,000 have fled their homes in northern Syria since Wednesday.
UNHCR said after eight years of conflict, Syria remains the largest refugee crisis in the world, with 5.6 million Syrians living as refugees.
Also this source is given for 60,000 Syrians fleeing however the article translates:*
3 different points in the town of Mardin Nusaybin mortar fell. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Nusaybin district of the city of Qamishli was thrown mortar by PKK terrorists. Thrown mortar hit a site in the district. 2 civilians were killed in the incident, 24 people were injured.
Mardin Governorate's statement on the incident, "Nusaybin as a result of mortars thrown from the Syrian border in our county, there are 2 civil martyrs, 24 injured."
No where does it mention Syrians fleeing. It should be removed as a source.*
Why was the section on Syrian Refugees removed? It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Bold splitoff
Goodposts has split off the entire reactions section to a separate article. While I'm not necessarily against this in principle, I really think this should have been discussed first, and also the total blanking of material from this page is not due as some abbreviated section is indeed very relevant. Thoughts, RfC or what?--Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You have a point, I mostly did this to preempt the deletion war that appeared to be brewing. I agree entirely that an abbreviated section containing the key and directly involved players is due. The point of the splitoff was to maintain the full list of reactions, as was done, for example in Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
CalthinusAgree my point exactly! We can keep the reactions of those directly involved, as well as world powers in a summarized statement in this article, then keep all the rest in the other. Good compromise between information and readability imho. Goodposts (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposition of a new section: Humanitarian Situation
I feel as though the Humanitarian Situation deserves it own section to covered, as Humanitarian Section decidated to the Humanitarian effect this is causing. 60,000 People have already fled so it is certainly important and many countries as the primary thing to look out for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Why however? The topic is directly related to the topic and effects the topic detrimentally and moreover Turkey claims that one of the primary reason for re-settlement is the displacement of Syrian Refugees. and 60,000 people are effected many which naturally are related to the SDF fighting force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The lede currently says:
The Turkish action was condemned by the European Union, the Arab League, Iran, Israel, Australia and the United Kingdom as an assault on the territory of a sovereign and Arab state and an irresponsible destabilizing action with "potentially terrible" humanitarian consequences.
According to the Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive article, the majority of countries or other entities that have declared a position on the matter have condemned or opposed the military offensive. However, according to the same article, a few others have not condemned or opposed it ("neutral" UN, NATO) or even have supported it (Turkey's allies Pakistan, Qatar). The position of the US too is rather murky (Pompeo's comments etc). The content in the lede should be modified to be more neutral and informing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
US -- and Russian -- ambiguous stances perhaps can be mentioned. Plus China's call for restraint which isn't exactly condemnation but is also clearly not support. I shied away from this when I was editing that sentence as I wasn't sure how to put it. I don't think either Pakistan or Qatar matter for something in Syria, frankly. What is relevant is the regional actors which are enumerated there, not the irrelevant ones (Armenia has a big opinion but does it matter?). Australia can go, I'm removing it momentarily. --Calthinus (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The current wording, at least how I interpret it, might make someone think that everyone has condemned Turkey's actions or that nobody has supported what the country is doing. I agree that wording for China, Russia, and in particular the US, is a complicated thing. In the case of the latter, we should probably wait for more clarifications before we add content on the American position to the lede. If the positions of Russia and China are added, the current wording probably becomes neutral enough, and surely more informative. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This matter is already being discussed in the very first section of this page. We do not need another separate thread for it. ST47 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{requested move/dated|2019 Invasion of northern Syria by Turkey}}
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The most basic of every military conflict article is how many troops/soldiers are brought into the conflict by Turkey. No where to seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.79.197.171 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, i don't even understand which are the sides involved in this... i mean Turkey is invading, but the other side is not Assad and the Syrian Armed Forces? And the coalition between the Free Syrian Army, the USA, and ISIL is not any of the sides either? So we have Assad fighting the coalition for Syria, and on a completely separate chapter, we have Turkey invading a little part of Syrian where some independentists started their own thing, and Turkey says the PPK are terrorists, but now they're collaborating with them? Explain it for people who come here from the main page. 201.178.50.126 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've checked other wikipedias.
Azerbaijani, Persian, Czech, Arabic, Estonian, French, Hebrew, Korean, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Serbian and Vietnamese wikipedias named this article as "Peace Fountain Operation". They seems neutral.
German wikipedia used "Turkish Military Offensive in Northern Syria". This is also neutral because it doesn't use unilateral and biased term "Rojava".
However, Indonesian, Catalan, Breton and Armenian wikipedias used term "Rojava" and this is obviously unilateral and biased.
I know every wikipedia has own understanding of NPOV and there's no reason to do it here as well. However, I can't see an appropriate explanation why this title should be "Rojava". This is a controversial term and I wonder why some people strongly defend that term to death. This title can be invasion or military offensive etc. we can discuss it's an invasion or not due to the results. This is another rational discussion, but why insist on "Rojava". Please correct me if I'm wrong, as far as I know people who support "Syrian Kurdish Independence" use that term. Current title shakes many people's faith to believe English Wikipedia has NPOV. Of course I know admins do not allow to discuss the title of article but I just wanted to share my ideas with sorrow about title. Also, I hope that violation will be resolved. Best regards.--Sabri76'talk08:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
sabri76. You are an admin in turkish wikipedia. Better do something about Wikipedia:NPOV problems and the other violations in Turkish wikipedia first. This is your first degree responsibility. Bye the way NPOV is just a mess. The name and the content of an article in wikipedia takes shape depending on the quantity of the users who defend an idea. You would better know the % 90 people interested in this article as well as the articles like armenian genocide have armenian, kurdish and greek ethnicity. So comes the result. If they call it Rojova then it is Rojova. best wishes. 31.206.52.66 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The majority of the 2,000 US military trainers and advisors working in Syria were sent home in early 2019. Following the framework of a gradual withdrawal, roughly 1,000 American soldiers remained in Syria by May 2019, with only The goal of keeping only 400 in place by the end of 2019.
The Kurds of northern Syria were advised of American troop removals 2 years ago. On October 9th, due to the invasion of Syria by the Turkish Army, the Pentagon ordered 50 American trainers and advisors from the northern border of Syria for safety reasons.
In October 12, 2019 American President D. Trump sent $50M in emergency funds to Syria to "protect persecuted ethnic and religious minorities and advance human rights." He reiterated his statement of, "the endless wars must end."
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. There was clear consensus to move the article, but it was split between the descriptive and operation titles. I went with the former, however, because arguments as to the one-sided nature of the latter were not addressed substantively enough (beyond noting that there are similar articles titled as operations — but there are also articles titled descriptively). Also, the descriptive title enjoyed more recent support, which could indicate a shift in the consensus. I should stress again that the consensus was split, but a decision had to be made El_C15:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest reaching a consensus on the name of the article at the start of the operation, so that we do not have to move it over and over again. In line with the previous Turkish military operations in Syria (Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch), i propose the following name for this article: Operation Peace Spring. Turkish president Erdogan used this exact name when launching the operation this afternoon. [1]I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Wiki NPOV actual goes against using one sides operational name over another. A more neutral name would not refer to the operational name.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree "Operation Peace Spring" is the operation name as defined by one of the belligerent sides, and as such, I do not consider it a neutral name. I'm sure that the SDF will have their own operation name soon, and I strongly doubt it would match the Turkish side's name. As for the other operations, I actually believe they should be subjected to the same treatment. I do not know why, but Turkish military operations seem to be named by their Turkish-defined names, which is in contrast to most established customs, even within the Syrian Civil War niche. For example, the Syrian Government's recent offensive in Idlib was dubbed by a neutral name - namely Northwestern Syria offensive (April-August 2019) and not by the name given to it by the Syrian Government - "Operation Dawn of Idlib", a stark contrast to operations begun by the Turkish government. Using the operation's name as defined by only one side could constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Instead, I'd suggest we refer to it as "Turkish military operation in Northern Syria" and create a redirect pointing there from "Operation Peace Spring", so any reader that is searching for the article using the Turkish-defined name could still easily find it. I consider that to be an equitable compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the more I think about it the more offensive it becomes to me to adopt the propagandistic title of a warring faction for this attack. I have moved it to a wordy but neutral title. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to Operation Peace Spring, as it is a Turkish military operation codenamed that. The codenames are what we have the other 2 Turkish military operations in Syria under, and it is concise. It should also be protected from moving, regardless of what the name is. -Thespündragon01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The current title (2019 Rojava offensive) is the worst possible option here because of its ambiguity. Since it doesn't mention that Turkey is doing the offensive-ing, it implies that it's Rojava, as the only named party, which is attacking. I don't have much of an opinion on using the operation name, though I find Goodposts' argument reasonable, but either way we're going to need at least one more rename. ansh.66601:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer something along the lines of "2019 Turkish offensive in Rojava" - I don't like "2019 Rojava offensive" because it almost makes it sound as if Rojava is the belligerent on the offensive, which isn't accurate. I know we've used the Turkish operation names before on other articles, but in all honesty I really don't think it should be that way. I completely share the concern of Drmies here. Titles like Operation Peace Spring and Operation Olive Branch are simply Orwellian. I'd support any title that indicates that it's a Turkish military operation, as others have suggested, but using Turkey's names which are intended to make their offensive invasion sound like a peacekeeping mission is obviously neither neutral nor accurate. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest name change to 2019 Turkish invasion of Northern Syria. Rojava is the name of the Kurdish region of Syria but it is not really encompassing of the many Arab regions of Northern Syria which are being invaded. Manbij may also be invaded and this Arab-majority town is outside the Rojava region of Syria. In addition, many Arabs and other non-Kurds are part of the SDF so I think a title like Northern Syria is far better suited. As for using the term 'invasion', this is nothing else but an invasion by definition. Whether you believe this invasion is justified (according to Turkish narrative) or whether you beleive it is clear Turkish agression is your opinion. But the word invasion needs to stand in place of military 'offensive', which makes this Turkish aggression sound innocent and like this any other battle of the Syrian civil war (on Wikipedia). In reality, the Syrian regime has condemned the Turkish invasion as a clear violation of the territory of Syria, and the SDF have done likewise. So the Turks are unwanted and Damascus has also condemned the Turkish operation as an 'invasion'. I agree with User:Vanilla Wizard in that the Turkish names for their various invasion operations are misleading. User:User17819827399816617202:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No serious news outlet uses the word "rojava", outside PYD/YPG/PKK sources. If you are not going by the official name, then I would suggest something like "Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria" or something along that line. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my preference too, "2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria". Says simply: when, who, what, where; in the most recognizable terms possible. Normally I'd advise waiting for sources but in this case I doubt they'll standardize on a single name. ansh.66605:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Rojava before discussing whether or not to use the name "Rojava." We've crossed that bridge through lengthy discussion before and it would be a mistake to re-cross it on every Rojava-related article. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
After re-reviewing the talk page at Talk:Rojava, I just realized that this user (Amr ibn Kulthoum) actually participated in the discussion there, and they suggested that the page "[[Rojava]]" should be renamed to "[[Kurdish occupied areas in northeastern Syria]]", comparing it to ISIL. I sincerely apologize if this comes off as an NPA violation, but their prior comments on this subject are problematic. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend a change of name to Turkish Invasion of Northern Eastern Syria as Rojava refers only the Kurdish sections of Syria and the fighting is happening on a much larger front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Rename to Operation Peace Spring, because on other operations like Operation Euphrates Shield, and Operation Olive Branch, the code-name's were used. Changing this to "Rojava" is basically pushing your own agenda of non-existent place. "Rojava Offensive" has 179,000 results on Google, while "Operation Peace Spring" has 81,800,000 and "Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria" has 36,200,000 results. "Turkish Operation in Northern Syria" has 98,700,000 results, but this contains the other oeprations as well. Let us say, we re-named it to Turkish Operation in Northern Syria, is any detail be given about that? Which Turkish Operation? Olive Branch, Euphrates Shield, Peace Spring, Idlib? Which? Beshogur (talk)
Rename to Operation Peace Spring, just like the previous two Turkish military campaigns in Syria are referred to by their official names. Besides, literally no media source uses the term Rojava, not even Rudaw, the official broadcaster for Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government. Mostly "military incursion into Northeastern Syria/NE Syria" are used. Berkaysnklf (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait This is a matter of current events. This can go on for some time, say a week or two, and then we can see what name the media gives to it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please explain how it is npov when the areas name is Syria (north east) ? Which countries recognizes "Rojava" as the areas name? Even the kurds themselves who have the power there calls it the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose to Operarion Peace Spring Why on earth should WP use the fringe name of the aggressors for an illegal operation? The suggestion is absolutely preposterous and would be the most POV imaginable. I see almost no media in English using that name, making the discussion a non-starter. Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The reason why you call it "fringe" is because the operation name contains the word "Peace"? By Operation Olive Branch, some people were intented to remove that name as well, but it was concluded that it is actually going to stay like this. We should use the name what the operation actually is called. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Actually called"? By whom? Could you point me to the Kurdish sources calling it Operation Peace Spring. It's an inherently POV name, as it is the name by the aggressor in the conflict, not used by both parties, and not the common usage in media in English (and this is English Wikipedia, WP:UE applies). Jeppiz (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
By Turkey. It's an operation conducted by Turkey. I don't care if you think Turkey are the aggressors or not. There's not a rule that an article should be called because one side doesn't call it like that. As I said before, the operation is CONDUCTED by Turkey, so code name given by Turkey should be used. What's up with "Rojava offensive", do Turks call it like that? Why aren't you calling it "Rojava Defense" or something else. This title is a result of pushed POV of some people. "Operation Peace Spring" has 81,300,000 results on Google, so it should be used. Beshogur (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, in line with how English language sources present the operation as well as staying away from orwellian codenames that happen to be not particularly prevalent in English-language media reports.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Using the Turkish code, or the Kurdish "Rojava" is not NPOV. The region where the campaign is taking place is in Syria, which the name used by most serious media outlets.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree I suggest move to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, why use a fringe name/codename using by one particular participant. Title should be descriptive and neutral. I had no idea Rojava was a region in Syria and there are other regions being invaded, therefore it should at least mention Syria and preferably north-eastern Syria if a more specific region is required. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk)11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Rename to Operation Peace Spring, in line with the previously established template of naming the other two Turkish offensives in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose As detailed Rojava means "Western Kurdistan" (Syrian Kurdistan) in Kurdish areas of the fighting is not just within the geographic area of rojava which is not used by the SDF because of the different groups in the region. Moreover when people are looking up this conflict it is unlikely they will search "Rojava Offensive." Everyone will remember this conflict as "Turkish war in Northern Syria" i also dislike the name as prior to the attack there was absolutely SDF attacks on Turkey moreover the SDF has not attempted to provoke turkey. Some people dislike the term "Invasion" due to the dubious nature of SDF having territory, so i would like to have a compromise change "Offensive" to "Attack" there is no denying that Turkey instigated the fighting in Northern Syria regardless of bias. (Although my personal bias in favor of the SDF.) I think this would be the best method of the Title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks like both “Operation Peace Spring” and “2019 Rojava offensive” aren’t neutral enough names according to the discussion above. The most clear and neutral name I can think of would then be Turkish military operation in northern Syria. This name gives a clear picture of what this article is about. This name also avoids the discussion about the phrase ‘invasion’. In addition, Turkish most recent operation (Operation Olive Branch), was named “Turkish military operation in Afrin” before it got moved to the current name. On top of that there is also an article named
Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate, so this name would fit in that list. Finally, the word ‘east’ does not necessarily have to be included, since this operation will focus on a zone along the Syrian-Turkish border. @Drmies, Nice4What, Goodposts, Thespündragon, Vanilla Wizard, Beshogur, A4516416, Starship.paint, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Slatersteven: I would like to hear from you guys and many more, also feel free to comment the name you think fits the best with some arguments. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with "Turkish military operation in northern Syria". Although I do think that this military operation can be classified as both an offensive and an invasion, we have to reach some form of compromise somewhere, and the name proposed by you is neutral, thus acceptible in my view. Goodposts (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, the majority of users are against using the word "rojava" in the title and prefer "northeastern Syria", and one user had decided to make the previous name move based on their single opinion. I think "2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria" should encompass the vast majority of the previous opinions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I am in SUPPORT of the current name or a name like "2019 Northern Syria Offensive" much like the name of the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) the page wasn't called the "2014 ISIL offensive in Northern Iraq" or the "ISIL invasion of Nineveh" or anything else of the sort, it was a simple and easy name that explained exactly what it was, an Offensive in Northern Iraq. The current name "2019 Rojava Offensive" is fine in my opinion, it isn't perfect but it is a lot better than names like the "Turkish invasion" or "Turkish offensive", as there are Syrian natives involved on both sides, including exiles from eastern Syria and the SIG will be the ones who administer the land captured Turkey is playing a supportive role, and it really is just media sesnsationalization.Takinginterest01 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria or something very similar. It is clear, not biased and not obscure. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment. “Operation Peace Spring” is a lot more common, but it is too early to say. Perhaps a descriptive title like Turkish invasion of Syrian Kurdistan or something else would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria or Operation Peace Spring, "Rojava" is not a real place or a real name and is not recognized as such by any nation, even its official name by the kurds who have the power there is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and it is in itself an unrecognized entity. "Rojava" is a fake propaganda name used by some to try to divide Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Turkish offensive in northeast Syria. As far as I can tell, using Rojava is a clear case of bias on Wikipedia - the Kurdish lobby in the West is strong, the irrational Turkophobia ever present (see the Armenian genocide article), and so is the denigration of Assad's rightful rule over Syria, so it makes for a perfect storm of delusion. Rojava is as much an unrecognized state as the Donbass Republics, Israel, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo or the Republic of China.--Adûnâi (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Turkish offensive in northern and eastern Syria. Many of you are missing the fact that it's north and east Syria, not just northeast. Kobanî and Tell Abyad cannot be considered part of northeast Syria. Lightspecs (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Operation Peace Spring should immediately brought back as the title. The turkish offensive names aren't appropriate as it is not only Turkey doing the operation bút also their ally the Syrian National Army. 2402:800:4157:4F1E:E5DC:6FAA:D0F1:450B (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Operation Peace Spring. This operation is obviously like Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch. There's no difference. Turkey makes cooperation with Syrian dissidents. In operation title, we can explain in the article what's happening in operation. Except German, Armenian, Indonesian and Catalan wikipedias, many wikis use "operation" title. This is the rational way. Turkey is respectful of the integrity of Syria and wants to fight against YPG/PKK. Turkey sees YPG linked to PKK and this operation aims at cleaning YPG militias and bring peace to Northern Syria.--Sabri76'talk10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sabri76: - your POV is showing - Turkey is respectful of the integrity of Syria. Meanwhile - [5]“Syria strongly condemns irresponsible statements and aggressive intentions of the Turkish regime and its amassing of the army at the Syrian border, which is a disgraceful breach of international law and UN resolutions that respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the country’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.. starship.paint (talk)11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria Its the most sensible and NPOV title as the usually credible English-language news sources (BBC[6], CNN[7], Reuters[8], AP[9], Al-Jazeera, NY Times[10], WPost[11]) all use "northeast" (more precise or "northern" Syria and the word "offensive". "Rojava" is a non-starter and its usage especially on the Main Page undermines our encyclopedia's credibility. It is the Kurdish word for "West[ern] Kurdistan" and I'm not even sure if the original Kurdish definition would apply to the mostly Arab-populated region between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ain. While some of these RS use "Kurdish-held northern Syria", which is not the same as "Kurdish northern Syria", none use "Rojava", which is political and nationalist terminology and not recognized by any in the international community or by the national governments of the ME. Al Ameer (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 10 October 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: This requested move appears to be out of process, attention should be centralized at the "Name of the article" discussion where there is already a developing consensus.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redundant - The move discussion is still ongoing and a consensus will be reached. While it is normally standard to keep the pre-discussion name until a new consensus is reached, the page was moved by an administrator because they believed that the original name was an offensive violation of the policy on neutrality. Users are evidently split on what the name should be, so you're welcomed to join the discussion above. Vanilla Wizard 💙06:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
why are we re-proposing titles in a second discussion less than 12 hours after starting the previous discussion? the nom requested a procedural speedy move, but turning this into a multi-threaded discussion when we were already engaged in one seems like a preventable headache Vanilla Wizard 💙06:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The deletion of this. Apparently an Admin has moved it to his current state. Does the admin have more consensus rights over regular users? It was in its previous name with the consensus of three users, it still has consensus by 5 users now (increased). But apparently an admin has seen the current name more fit? Even though more users disagreed with him. And now we have to stick with this name because an admin feels so? I still insist of speedy move until the discussion above is finished. A4516416 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't mind that at all, but if this thread is going to stay, I'd prefer that the discussion is limited to the nominator's requested move to the previous name. It's already difficult to form a consensus when we have one thread in which we're proposing as many potential names as we can think of, but having two at the same time would be painfully taxing. It's better for all of us that we limit our own wikistress by keeping the move proposals in one open section at a time. Vanilla Wizard 💙07:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that's why I opened this anyway, to stick to this name change. Now can we actually get an admin to make this move in under 24 hours? You might now better how to get an administrators intervention. A4516416 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Supporting 2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria, as proposed by several users. An obvious and strong oppose to Operation Peace Spring, as that is not an official name except for the aggressor, nor is it what most English language media use. The claims by its proponents that it's the "official" would only be correct if Wikipedia was subject to the Turkish regime. Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are plenty of military operations on Wikipedia were the actual name supported by outside real-word sources are used (Doppolkopf, desert shield, Barbarossa). If we would give the same threat meant to other articles and call Hitler “German person 1889-1945 (number 2341)” or the bible “Christian holy book (1)” the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing. I might not the most knowledgeable on Wikipedia rules and guidelines but I do know that the guidelines literally tell us to ignore the rules in situations like this. In the case that you decide against that, I would propose using a name that is fully neutral. Not the words invasion or offensive. Any of the participants might change their story later on. If the current consensus that it is an invasion, wether it is a justified one or not, is the reason that the word invasion can be considered neutral than it wouldn’t be neutral anymore if that happens which I think might be a Wikipedia worthy but certainly isn’t the real definition of neutral. If the name(s) of SDF operations countering this operation are to decide the name of the article on this related but distinct operation as stated above then the article should be called something like operations in north-eastern Syria (followed by a date or some other distinguisher) because that would be fully neutral and include all operation of the (what was previously called an) invasion. In that case no one will go into the article thinking “a NATO member attacked them so they must be terrorists” or “Turkey attacks so they are evil” but instead get the whole story with all its nuances at once. If neither of these is a satisfactory solution to you I would recommend finding a reliable outside source and presenting the name it uses so a name with a connection to the real world can be used instead of one created on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. Dorromikhal (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm you have a good point at the encyclopaedia would only become extremely confusing, however Hitler and the Bible are proper nouns that are universally known, the codename for an operation launched by a specific state is not universal and the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk)12:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Than I would propose calling the article something like “Operation in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” or “Actions in north-eastern Syria (distinguisher)” as it would include operation launched any non-Turkish parties that are or might get involved and it is neutral more so than Turkish invasion/offensive of/in north-eastern Syria. Dorromikhal (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I support "2019 Turkish invasion of Northwest Syria" people will remember the conflict here being called this and "Rojava" means "Western Kurdistan" IE: Syrian Kurdistan yet there is a mass amount of non-kurdish areas being invaded and moreover if people where to look up this conflict it is unlikely they type "2019 Rojava Offensive."
But what about operations instead of invasion? Than the article could include follow up operations and such which might not strictly be considered part of the invasion. If those would get their own article with an equally vague name then it might get difficult to navigate for people who haven’t spend hours discussing neutral names on a Wikipedia talk page. Dorromikhal (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the adoption if the word "rojava" by Wikipedia is scandalous and pure POV and whitewashing. Again, as I said before, no RESPECTED INTERNATIONAL media source/organization or entity uses the word "rojava" outside YPG/PKK affiliated sources. Even those used this word to refer to Kurdish-majority areas, which are strictly the northern part of al-Hasakah governorate, and two other small pockets along the Turkish border. You can see the Talk page of the rojava article for more details, and I am prepared to provide examples here again if people want to see them. However, a handful of users decided the fate of the name adoption, while almost everyone outside Wikipedia uses northeastern Syria or East of Euphrates to describe the region. It is about time for someone neutral with some logic to review all these articles. Having said that, any name suggesting a military operation in northeastern Syria is fine with me. BTW, the FSA is participating in this, ans I don't think you can call this an invasion. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Turkish president emphasised it will be a restricted operation by creating a 30 km-deep (20 miles) safe zone in Northern Syria. "offensive" or "invasion" titles are not in accordance with WP:NPOV. This operation is obviously like Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch. There's no difference. The title should be "Operation Peace Spring" and opposition side has to prove that why it has to be changed.--Sabri76'talk14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Sabri76, your reasoning is faulty. That other articles have POV titles (with names provided by the militarily superior or politically most powerful party) is no reason to do it here as well. User:Nice4What, do not expect to be thanked for your edit warring, let alone for your unexplained move to "Rojava", a word that doesn't even occur on this talk page until after your move: that is hallmark disruption and, I gather from comments here, not neutral either. You yourself haven't even mentioned it here. User:Vhstef, your move (to "invasion") is POV as well, by its very word choice.
El C has move-protected the article, which was the right thing to do; that it was The Wrong Version is just part and parcel of the process whereby an admin stays out of content matters. But I think anyone who's ever closed an RfC can look over this discussion to conclude that the current title ("Rojava offensive"), the former title ("Peace Spring" or whatever), and the intermediate title ("anything with invasion") are to be discredited for POV reasons, and that variants of "2019 offensive by Turks in Northern Syria" or something like that are supported by a preponderance of editors--with arguments. If this doesn't get solved quickly, I'll post on WP:AN or maybe the RfC talk page to have someone with experience look at this and make the call. We can NOT have POV article names in such current matters. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It would be nice if any text made that clear--more importantly, if any French reaction addressed that. BTW lots of countries have troops in the region; it's not equally important for all those countries. We shouldn't put any Kurdish response on a par with that of Belgium or Finland or whatever. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree too many countries, was too quick to judge without reading to content at the revert there, there are too many unnecessary countries not involved. A4516416 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Only America, France, Denmark (medical) and the UK have troops in Northeastern Syria. This article mentions French and British troops and the scenario of an American withdrawal[12] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe that adding reactions from world and regional powers, as well as neighbouring countries, should also be included. Any country with "boots on the ground" should definitely also be included, regardless of how small the contingent actually is. International organizations, such as the Arab League and UN should also be included in the reactions tab. What should be excluded, however, are generic political statements that don't really address the situation. My 2 cents. Goodposts (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So what's the consensus? Since countries like Finland and Australia have been added, why have Belgium, Sweden and the reaction of other European countries not been re-added? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank, I haven't yet heard of a convention that limits the international reactions to a given event. If there's global outcry for or against a given event, the reader should know about it. I think we should only exclude political statements that don't address the issue, as I've noted above. If there are so many reactions that the article becomes too long or hard to read, they should instead be moved to their own page "International reactions to X", instead of being deleted. Goodposts (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Goodposts, that you haven't heard of that convention isn't surprising, given that you have only 820 edits here. "Global outcry" doesn't have to be proven by a list of flags and boilerplate responses. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Drmies Ah, the bogstandard snob reply, alluding to edit counters as a measure of correctness. Classy. And now to actually address the point - there are many, many articles, which list global reactions. Besides the ones that Lightspecs pointed out, there are very recent examples, such as Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. If you wish to condense the information that we have currently presented in this way, please feel free to create a color-coded world map, which would allow for the information to be conveyed in a more text-efficient way. Goodposts (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Drmies is correct. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wheter here or at another article, only summaries of the most important ones are required. We aren't a host for collections of political tweets. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources primarily refer to the present assault as a TSK offensive, whereas reliable souces primarily refer to the first stage of the Iraq War as an invasion. -Thespündragon02:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that it would necessarily be inappropriate to dub it an "Invasion", since it represents a military offensive, in which military forces are under taking offensive maneuvers from one nation's territory into another. There are a good few sources that dub the operation an "invasion". The only difference between this and Iraq is that in Iraq the offensive was against the Iraqi Government, while as in this case it targets a proto-state established within another nation's territory. With that said, considering that the Syrian Government has vehemently opposed the operation, I can still be deemed an invasion. But I think that the semantic differences between "offensive" and "invasion" aren't really significant enough to warrant a lot of drama. Goodposts (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an invasion. It meets the defintion of an INVASION. The Turkish army has violated Syria's soveriegnity and has trepassed and invaded. Damascus did not invite Turkey's military into Northern Syria and has in fact roundly condmened the Turkish military operation as an invasion. It is very silly to not use the term invasion and instead use operation, which is an attempt at legimitizing Turkey's aggression. User178198273998166172 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please don't fetishize the "sovereignty" of a military dictatorship which lost control over huge swaths of the area it claims jurisdiction over. Plus, we will have to go by the sources. Du moment that the sources call it an invasion, you can bring this back up again. "Operation" doesn't legitimize--though calling the article by its "official" Turkish name is. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is "fetishizing" anything. Form of government and your personal opinion aside, the Syrian Government is officially recognized by the UN (and most of the world's nations, even if they oppose Assad) as the only government of the soverign UN-member state of Syria. The fact that it has lost control over parts of it's territory doesn't mean that it has lost it's soverignty entirely. If that were the case then Ukraine, Serbia, Somalia, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Libya and many other nations would be considered "not soverign". There are several sources which dub it an "invasion". Furthermore, going by your logic - why shouldn't we call it by it's SDF-defined name then? Answer - because going by one of the belligerent party's names shows a POV in favour of that party vis-a-vis the other. Wikipedia's job isn't to determine which party get's to be the "official" coiner of the operation, merely to describe it's meaning. Goodposts (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that the existing sources disagree, with reliable sources existing both calling it an invasion [13][14][15][16] and others you've noted calling it an offensive. Reyne2 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
A foriegn power is launching a full-scale military operation into another country, this constitutes an INVASION. The 2018 invasion of Afrin ironically dubbed Olive Branch by Turkey should also be considered a small-scale invasion of Syria. Turkey amassed troops on the Syrian border and crossed over and attacked Syrians. It doesn't matter which side these Syrians are on in the civil war, what matters is that they are an indigenous Syrian entity being attacked by a foriegn power. It's important to note that the Syrian gov. has objected to these Turkish operations and has called them invasions. If you try and tell me the US having troops in Syria also constituted invasion, that is incorrect. The US sent troops on the invitation of the SDF to combat ISIS which declared war on the US, and these troops never numbered over a thousand or so, and most were relegated to advising and assisting and training the SDF. These various Turkish operations have been full-scale military assaults involving several divisions of Turkish soldiers and tanks crossing from Turkey into Syria, hence it is an invasion! User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Invasion should be considered a neutral term (it's not "aggression"), or at least as neutral as 'offensive'. There are invasions that were undertaken in self-defense or as part of defensive wars. In my mind the most significant difference is that 'offensive' is more of an operational term, while 'invasion' is more of a strategic term (or at least invasion belongs to a higher plane), which means that 'offensive' might become outdated depending on how the situation develops: if Turkey captures some towns, the front stabilizes and then the SDF launches a counterattack, Turkey would be executing a defensive operation which would still be part of the invasion. If you want to be euphemistic I'd rather have 'intervention'. Daydreamers (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree I have reverted this edit because this offensive doesn't comply with the definition of invasion. There is no full-scale warfare right now in northern Syria. It's an operation targeting certain groups and Turkey doesn't have the intention to occupy the region which also opposes the 'invasion' term. TheGroninger (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
At least one of us has to follow WP:BRD if anything's going to get done, and I feel like if I don't take it to talk, nobody will, so I'm making it into a thread myself. Vanilla Wizard 💙07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok let me start by saying I was not aware that there was a 1RR on this article, I don't think I've broken it but if I have I won't from now on. And the reason I changed this statement is because it is extremely ambiguous. What does that sentence even mean? Seems like a POV attack placed right on to the lede. I first removed it fully, someone re added it, than I moved it to background section and added more details, someone fully reverted me once again. Now I've added more detail to it in the lede to fix the ambiguity and I hope no one fully reverts me once again and compromises. A4516416 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what other interpretations there are than the most literal one: Erdoğan believes that the demographic makeup in that part of Syria isn't how it should be, and this military operation is an attempt at changing that. In any case, that's incredibly significant, and worth putting in the lede. I would like to again remind you of the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. "Bold" refers to the change that you boldly added yourself, "Revert" refers to another editor reverting back to the status quo, and "Discuss" obviously refers to that it should be talked through on the talk page. Your idea of "compromise" appears to be adding more bold changes to the disputed content without consulting anyone to see if your "compromise" is in fact an agreeable solution. If you have an idea for how that sentence should look, put it here, not on the article itself. Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
OK so I have never actually made the same edit two times. And Vanilla Wizard has probably broken 1RR in this article over 3 times. He keeps reverting the sourced material I'm adding and does not want anything that I am adding into the article. The change I want to add is more definition into baseless ethnic cleansing accusation in the source that quotes a Saudi website. The change I want to make is, adding more definition to the statement in the LEDE, that says. "According to a spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the operation is intended to "correct the demographics" of northern Syria." And the correct demographics section has a link that links to the page ethnic cleansing. If this is not POV and Original research I don't know what is. A4516416 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @A4516416: Read the wording at WP:3RR, particularly the part about whether involving the same or different material. You've each broken 1RR multiple times. Even without the 1RR notice, you've each broken 3RR. This is independent of any other policy reason for making an edit, such as BRD or POV, with the only exceptions given here. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You can add material that does not reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, per the wording at 3RR. However, I would suggest taking a step back from this article and focus your attention elsewhere for now or at least take the time to calm down. It's a controversial topic, stay cool. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I recognize that crossed the line and I'm deeply disappointed in myself for that. I thought taking it to talk was the right thing, but I obviously shouldn't be editing this page, or - at the very least - letting myself impulsively respond. I should have just asked for a third party to handle it before it got as messy as it did. I think the best option would be for me to take a self-imposed WikiBreak right about now. Vanilla Wizard 💙07:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vanilla Wizard: Taking it to talk was the right thing. Reverting afterwards repeatedly in the name of BRD wasn't. I think that would be a good idea. Kudos for recognizing that. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit conflicted a few times. I'm making this side discussion into a subsection so as to not totally derail the thread above about the actual content. To be quite clear, it is a violation of the special community sanction WP:GS/ISIL to make two reverts to the same article within a 24 hour period, regardless of whether those are to the same or different parts of the article, or whether they are or are not exactly the same diff, or whether you use the Undo or Rollback tool or neither one. It's also not a competition for who reverts the most. I consider A4516416's edit, which partially reverted this one, to be a 1RR violation, as is Vanilla Wizard's. It looks like everyone's ready to cool it for a little while, I'd appreciate it if that could happen. The other option is for people to start getting blocked. ST47 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Rojava" is not a real place and is not recognized as such by any nation, even its official name is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and it is in itself an unrecognized entity. Please rename the article to "2019 Turkish-Syrian Kurdish offensive" or something like this that actually follows reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Not constructive. Rojava has been in use by Wikipedia as well as Western media for years now. It is the name given to a de facto state that has been in operation for years, so yes, it is as "real" as any other imagined community state entity.--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Supreme Deliciousness. Again, the adoption of the word "Rojava" is exclusive to pro-YPG/PKK sources (Rudaw, ARA news, Kurdistan 24). Most international media do not refer to this area as "Rojava". This is no different from any other area in Syria, which is called by the name of the war belligerent occupying it. A handful of users here insist on inventing names for this area and/or adopting made-up propaganda names such as rojava. How can the name apply to three enclaves not exceeding 5% of Syria's territory back in 2015 and apply the same name to an area covering 30% of Syria, with a majority of non-Kurdish residents, not now and never in the past? Here is a few examples from respected sources:
None of these media outlets mentions the word "rojava" in these stories. They simply refer to the area by the facts, that is Kurdish-controlled areas, SDF-controlled areas, Kurdish forces, etc. Any serious attempt at fixing the credibility of these articles? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You are clearly acting in bad faith by alleging that 'Rojava' is a 'propaganda name' and that Wikiedian users are intent on adopting 'made-up names'. For one, you should know that Rojava is what the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is referred to by numerous news sources including The Guardian and The Conversation. Second, all names are quite literally 'made-up'. Not only that, the Wikipedia page for the NES calls it Rojava and points out that the Autonomous Administration is also often referred to simply as Rojava. Whilst major news sources might refrain from referring to the region as Rojava for political reasons, that does not take away from the fact that the Autonomous Administration is referred to simply as Rojava in numerous spheres across the world. With the words you consciously chose to use, forgive me for being led to the conclusion that you are less than impartial on this particular subject. Sisuvia (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sisuvia: Woow. First, where is your evidence for rojava adoption by anyone besides PYD? Obviously you know nothing about this matter and chose the easy way of personal attack instead of providing any substance to your claims. Why don't you see the Talk pages of all the articles within this rojava make-up project before commenting here?! FYI, I come from Syria, and have been to all of these areas all the way to to the Tigris, and have friends in each of those areas. Also, a quick look at your user page shows your background, so very understandable that you support this propaganda, but Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@عمرو بن كلثوم: You want evidence for the name Rojava being adopted by anyone besides the PYD and Kurdish people? You seriously only need to go onto the world wide web for the evidence. In almost every echelon of virtual (meaning online) society, Rojava is used to refer to the NES. If you're too lazy, that is not my problem. I don't really see how pointing out that you were and are acting in bad faith a personal attack. Me attacking you personally would be ridiculing your name, ethnicity or anything personal. Oh wow, you come from Syria, therefore you must know everything about the region. Sorry to say but that isn't how knowledge works. Just because you're from a certain geographical location doesn't mean that you know everything about said location. I could say the same for you, your user page shows that you are of of Arab ancestry, and suffice to say Arabs in general have always held a disdain for Kurdish people. That is proven by the attempted Arabisations and genocides conducted against Kurds in the Middle Eastern region. Unlike you, despite my personal beliefs I am able to separate my biases from official Wikipedian work, as I have always done and striven to do. Sisuvia (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
not a live new feed
We are not a live news feed, so can we not have up to the minute updates everything a new claim is made. Causalities, gains and loses ect can be left out until we know the truth.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We have always, for the past seven years, provided live updates as you put it regarding the capture of territory or casualties sustained during an offensive or a battle in the Syrian war. We also did the same thing during the previous two Turkish offensives into Syria. So there is no reason not to do so now as well. Also, the operation may last for weeks or months and leaving out this kind of info during that time would not be correct in regards to the readers. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not make a right. We are not a news paper we are an encyclopedia (see wp:notnews), and we want the most accurate information we can. By its nature any breaking news may not be accurate. All this does is make work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Its actually not just "two wrongs". Like I said, we have done it for virtually all offensive and battle articles of the Syrian war since its start (which there are a few hundred). The two previous Turkish offensives were only small examples. Due to the rapidly changing events we have the Wikipedia "current" banner which conveys to our readers "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page." And there are editors (like myself) who have taken it upon themselves to keep the article up-to-date. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
OK 3, 12, 2786 wrongs do not make a right. It does not matter how many times this has been done, it is not how it is supposed to be done. All this does is mean we have to watch every news feed so as to make sure that if they capture more villages or lose some our article reflects the latest claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a newsdesk, there is no reason to delay the addition of relevant information, so long as it is properly sourced. As EkoGraf stated, we have done this on articles pertaining to the Syrian Civil War for years now. Information will sometimes get debunked, but waiting until the very end of an event would lead Wikipedia to be completely out of date. For example, if we had waited until the end of the recent government offensive in Northwestern Syria, we would have had to delay the article by over 5 months. A lot of events having to do with the civil war are long and protracted, so waiting until they are finished to write about them would only harm the article's relevance. Goodposts (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Our articles do not have to have contemporary relevance (after all out article on battle of Waterloo is hardly contemporary). They should have the best information we can provide, and something that in 5 minutes time could be out of date does not (to my mind) fulfill that role. Also see the thread below, any live update (I recall this form the Istanbul night club shooting) is always going to be riddled with misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to update the article with information that "could be out of date in 5 minutes", but the fact of the matter is wikipedians want to read about the topic on Wikipedia. The Peace at Home Council article was created during the very early stages of the 2016 Turkish Coup Détat attempt, at a time when both the composition of the 'council' and the extent to which it controlled the country were entirely unknown. Initially, the article had very little actual meat to it. Yet, with the effort of Wikipedians, it was greatly improved. I believe that what we have here today is a much superior version to what was done back then (and in similar articles, too!). So let's just agree on standards of quality and get to editing. Goodposts (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I see the point Slatersteven is making, and I agree. Not everything published by the media should be added to the article. This is, after all, an enyclopedia, not a news site. Too many details might damage the quality of the article rn. A summary of the situation based on multiple RS is sufficient. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And here is the rub, who gets to decide if its relevant, 6 villages captured (or is it 11?) relevant, 60,000 refuges irrelevant. This is just all edit war fodder.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And another example of why this is a bad idea [[18]]. If we cannot know who and what these places are (or even if they exist) this is all wasting our readers time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its a war, do we really need every town that is shelled, and a list of each engagements casualties, surely daily totals are enoug>?Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it biased to mention Turkish civilians killed along with their ages when God knows how many Kurdish and Syrian civilians have died under indiscriminate Turkish shelling and aerial bombing. It is a fact many more have died, and plenty of children too. Is this particular editor trying to gain sympathy for Turkey? Let's keep it objective and not mention the ages of those killed.
I have nothing aganist using Turkish government sponsored media, but let's not be biased for one side please and give unnecessary details. User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you bother to read the messages at the top of this Talk Page before you posted? The article is based on news reports from Reliable Sources. I think you need to take a long mudbath in the Wiki policies and guidelines. 50.111.3.59 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
My problem here is that it is too much detail. You can mention 10 Turkish civilians killed in SDF shelling from these sources but do not add their ages like it is supposed to imply the SDF is deliberately going after Turkish children, and trying to invoke sympathy for Turkey. User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree one of the editor is not letting his person bias get in the way of truth. (I am personally biased to the SDF.) I had to change "109 Terrorists" to "109 SDF fighters." However i find it unnecessary the inclusion of personal details and there is a clear bias when not addressing Turkish bombing which lead to the killings of 5 people. Also i had an entire section completely deleted on Syrian Refugees with no prior reason as to why I assume it is just someone who does not like the information given.
It happened on October 10th and is an extremely important event it is effecting tens of thousands of people, it should obviously be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It is unprofessional and extremely biased to label and sort of dismiss one side as nothing more than 'terrorists'. I understand Turkey likes to demonize their enemies by branding them as 'terrorists' and 'criminals' but let's be professional and unbiased. So nice job deleting that garbage. If nobody objects, we should delete unnecessary info. about the civilian casualties. I have no objection to the sources used here, but it's just extra info that was put there becuase the editor was biased for Turkey. User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
So are we in general agreement to remove the lengthy section of individuals killed in the bombardment and replace it with a more simplified less expansive section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Al-Mushrifah cannot be in the war zone, so either there is another (I can find no reference to it) or the claim is a lie. This raises doubts as to the veracity of any claims to have captured anywhere, and such references should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: There is nothing dubious about this. There are dozens of villages with the same name in Syria. Usually there is an article for the largest one and this is what's happening here. Please take out your dubious tag... KasimMejia (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I will note the one of the sources in the info box says this "liberated 11 villages in Tal Abyad town and Ras al-Ayn city", so they are not in fact separate places, but districts of larger places. In fact only two towns have been captured. Now there may well be " dozens of villages with the same name in Syria", but until a source say one of them is the once mentioned here its not clear its true.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
What? Ok you clearly don't know topics well about the conflict. No towns are captured so far, only villages. And those villages are around the two town of Tal Abyad and RasulAyn. So that's why there are 13 villages captured. Please take out your original research dubious tag. KasimMejia (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If you think they are not neutral you can say 11-13 villages captured, since SOHR claims 11 and Turkey claims 13. SOHR will soon update to 13 as well since they are usually later on statements compared to Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its not OR, its what the source says, "in Tal Abyad town and Ras al-Ayn city", now please provide a source that says there is a village of Al-Mushrifah in the war zone.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Who updated? Turkish statement says 13 captured, if somebody else claims 10 can you edit it as 10-13 captured? And take out the dubious tag? KasimMejia (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No, because 13 is the Turkish (and thus is a non neutral claim) whilst 10 comes from a source that may be neutral. Thus the figure of 13 remains dubious. As to who updated www.syriahr.com did (hence why I linked to the update).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Dude can't you read the sources? I know its in Turkish but at least you should see the number 13 [20]. Can you take out that failed verification as well as dubious? I've added the source, it is in the article too, now come on. Stop this POV Original Research editing. KasimMejia (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: So according to you the source being Turkish is not only dubious but also is a failed verification? Do you even know what failed verification means? It means that the material is not included in the source. Not the case here. KasimMejia (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No? look at which source I marked as failing verification. Also lay of the accusations of "POV Original Research editing.", those are violations of wp:npa if you think I am POV pushing report me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Well for a start its 10 at the lower end, and again no I will not accept un verfieid Turkish claims, they are not neutral and thus fail wp:rs at this time. It has still not been demonstrated that Al-Mushrifah (or is it Mushrifah?) is in fact a real village in the war zone, a village counted twice (as we may be doing), a misnamed village (as may be (again) the case in our article), two separate villages (one or both in the war zone), or is an exaggeration.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol dude than say it is 10-11 villages. Like what is this argument about? I came here to discuss that dubious that and you keep on going in circles. Fine, just say 10-11, I never insisted on 13, just trying you to get that unnecessary tag out. Like what difference does it even make if its 11 or 13... KasimMejia (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its not 10-11, the only neutral(?) source says 10. As to what difference does it make, we are an encyclopedia, we are supposed to provide our readers with the most reliable information we can.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, than say its 10. Like what are the readers even gonna be informed whether Turkey captured 10 or 13 villages, but whatever say 10 and end this circle already. KasimMejia (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019
This edit request to 2019 Rojava offensive has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Although the neutrality of this article is dubious it does indeed state 2. However the bias seems irrelevant in this case as Turkey does not benefit from reporting this.
"Number of martyrs rose to 2 in Peace Spring Operation
The news of the martyr came on the third day of the Peace Spring Operation. Ministry of Defense announced that a soldier was martyred. Thus, the number of soldiers killed in the operation rose to 2. 2 soldiers were killed and 3 soldiers were wounded in Azez, west of Euphrates."
I Understand the majority of people here can not read Turkish however google translate is very easy to use.
Also this is clearly biased in favor of Turkish State Media however i have no doubt that this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Admins, please see the Talk page above. Despite reaching some consensus in the discussion, there has been no action on the name change since the first "unexplained move" was done without any discussion. This current scandalous name "2019 Rojava offensive" is on the first page and represents a stab in Wikipedia's credibility, since no one else (including other wikis) uses this fake name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Usually, move requests last for a week, but due to the high profile nature of the article and the near-universal rejection of the current title, I am evaluating the consensus presently. El_C14:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
342 killed according to Turkey.
@Slatersteven: Or ANYBODY else. Can you do this change for me? Source says 342 killed [22]. Some user changed it to killed wounded or captured thinking source claimed the word NEUTRALIZED. I asked him to undo but he is either ignoring or is just AFK User talk:WoofersSCW. KasimMejia (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
More then one source is used, at least some use the euphemism "neutralized". So I am not sure that one source saying "killed" is enough. Of course those two sources also seem out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If you people honestly believe in Turkish casualty estimates for their enemies, who they dismiss as 'terrorists', I think that is beyond stupid. This page could be worse if Wikipedia were not banned in Turkey, yet there are still plently of Turks it seems writing biased information. How would Turkey know how many SDF fighters have died??? Are they counting the bodies? No, Turkey bombs a city and then says "We killed 2503 TERRORISTS!". It is laughable and not worthy of being on this page. I trust and most editors here trust SDF and SOHR estimates rather than Turkish ones. User178198273998166172 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need a Wikipedia consensus whether to include this or not? There were 7 Turkish civilians killed yesterday with 5 of them being children, yet some user has deliberately removed the fact that they are children [23] although there are sources mentioning it. Can someone reinclude it? I don't want to violate 1RR, even though the user who did the revert has. KasimMejia (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm the one who took away that unnecessary information about age after we came to a consensus on this talk page reg. Turkish cvilians, that age is not necessary. You were abscent in that discussion, probably because you were banned that day. Basiscally going into too much detail about the age of Turkish children is biased because what about all the Kurdish and Syrian children who have died so far? I belive many more Syrian civilians have been killed so far by the Turks. If you choose to edit the page again and revert my edits, you will be banned again. Tread carefully. Reg, User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wow genuis here agrees. So what? Scroll up to the section titled "Turkish civilians" and if you disargee you can voice your opinion there. But, we have all agreed that it is biased to only mention Turkish children ages like they are somehow more important than Kurdish and Syrian children. User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
In my overall opinion it is useless information in other articles on the Syrian civil war it does not tell the age even if the information is available. It is not as if the SDF intended for civilians to be hurt. The only information that tells is that the conflict is brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Stating casualties "reported by [specific media outlet]" vs "reported by [nationality] sources"
@Slatersteven: Regarding this, [24] I think you're taking it a bit too far, the main three sources in this article should be, per Turkey, per SDF and per SOHR. You don't need to type the name of every different Turkish website, that just makes it confusing. You are welcome to say according to Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH and casualty numbers from multiple sources
If source A says 10 and source B says "Another town was captured" that does not mean 11 town were captured. We have no way of knowing if the first source took the "other town" into account or not. As we do not know when that town was captured. We know when the official announcement was made, but that is not the same as when it occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
... @Slatersteven:... here we go again, SOHR source claims 10 villages captured right? And then there is one Turkish source that has a video in it showing Tal Halaf captured. SOHR does not mention tal halaf... but let's say it does. What is the reason for saying Turks claimed all this? Turkish source only claims Tal Halaf, which is supported by a video. Can you please take it out? If you want you can say 10 villages including tal halaf. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its not, the claim of 11 is, as it does not appears in the non Turkish source. But you are right, I shall change to failed verification if you wish. We cannot say 11 unless a source says 11.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: This makes even less sense now, why did you add a failed verification? The source about Tal Halaf is right there [25] Here I add it again. You also placed failed verification next to SOHR rather than Turkish source. I think you haven't done it purposefully and missed the source, so I imagine you'll be taking it out when you read this. KasimMejia (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Wow, did we not just have a discussion about this? [26] Do you seriously want to start that debate all over again? Just change it to 10 villages captured then! Whats the purpose of adding a failed verification... KasimMejia (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Then the text should not have been changed from the agreed upon one. We cannot use a course to say X unless it says X, that is basic policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Ohh and I raised it here because we are rather in danger of edit warring, not just over this. Any more reverts by me will be edit warring. In fact I only just noticed the 1RR restriction, so may have broken it already.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Yes there is a 1RR on this article, that's why I'm messaging you each time I wanna make a change. As per discussion I'd appreciate you saying 10 villages and taking the unnecassary verification tag out. Dont take out Tal Halaf by the way, there is a video evidence of its capture. KasimMejia (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Tal Halaf does not appear to be a village, its an archaeological site. (I can find no reference to this village outside the source for its capture. Also this is still only a Turkish claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Alright fine, say 10 villages captured only then, not including tel halaf. Let's stop this circle discussion.Don't forget to take out the verification tag. KasimMejia (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Lol are you doing this on purpose, or did you just join wikipedia? Self reverts are not counted under 1RR or 3RR, in fact, they cancel out your last revert if you indeed broke a rule by it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I find you not responding to this very disrespecting and done on purpose, I'm done discussing with you because you are obviously not here to discuss but to waste others time. KasimMejia (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't think he is bad faith until he told me he didn't wanna revert himself even though we reached consensus, because he'd be violation 1RR if he did, and when I told him he wouldn't and explained 1RR he just stopped responding. KasimMejia (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You are not the only person who edits here, and I also believe in trying to act not as I say. Thus I would need more then just your OK to revert in breach of DS. Now it can be argued that there is now consensus for this edit, but I it had not gone on for that long. As I said I believe in leading by example, and thus must allow time in case anyone else objects to my edit. This is a very contentious subject with lots of POV (hence why I dislike newsyness here) and thus we should try to be on our absolutely best behavior. Not just obeying the spirit, but the letter of the law. Another reason ()as you can see already form the edit history) is 1RR is easy to miss or forget (hell 3RR is if you get too caught up), thus training yourself to never break it is a good way of not breaking it when it matters. We are all going to break 1RR (as I said its easy to forget it) but if we try to never make more then one reverts its makes it more likely we will remember.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The specific issue has now been dealt with. But @Starship.paint: there is still issues with civilian casualties (rather then using sources that give a total sources are being added together). The problem is no uninvolved RS are not giving the same (total) figure as we are (30 as opposed to 46).Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The total (if we add up both sets of casualties is 46 (well 47 with the extra 1), no RS give that figure for total dead. So either they are wrong, or we are. The 30 comes from this source [[27]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: - that 30 is a quote to SOHR. But the actual link to SOHR in that Euronews article makes no mention of 30 civilian deaths. The actual source we use for 28 deaths (also SOHR) ... [28] if you read the title, it says (according to Google Translate) "about 30 civilian martyrs". So I'm wondering if there was an error in translation for Euronews starship.paint (talk)13:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong. This wasn't settled. @EkoGraf: - why did you restore the 10 October source in an attempt to add casualties to a 12 October source? [32] How do you know that the 1 person isn't already counted in the 28 people?? starship.paint (talk)14:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Because the source for the 28 civilian deaths gives a detailed breakdown of the fatalities per locations of death and circumstances. Among these, the death of the one civilian by SDF shelling in Jarabulus isn't mentioned. EkoGraf (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree my point exactly! We can keep the reactions of those directly involved, as well as world powers in a summarized statement in this article, then keep all the rest in the other. Good compromise between information and readability imho. Goodposts (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree "Operation Peace Spring" is the operation name as defined by one of the belligerent sides, and as such, I do not consider it a neutral name. I'm sure that the SDF will have their own operation name soon, and I strongly doubt it would match the Turkish side's name. As for the other operations, I actually believe they should be subjected to the same treatment. I do not know why, but Turkish military operations seem to be named by their Turkish-defined names, which is in contrast to most established customs, even within the Syrian Civil War niche. For example, the Syrian Government's recent offensive in Idlib was dubbed by a neutral name - namely Northwestern Syria offensive (April-August 2019) and not by the name given to it by the Syrian Government - "Operation Dawn of Idlib", a stark contrast to operations begun by the Turkish government. Using the operation's name as defined by only one side could constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Instead, I'd suggest we refer to it as "Turkish military operation in Northern Syria" and create a redirect pointing there from "Operation Peace Spring", so any reader that is searching for the article using the Turkish-defined name could still easily find it. I consider that to be an equitable compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: Marking this as answered. This is a developing article with lots of changes and discussion; no need to keep this open. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
