Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Question about the title

The article says that American English should be used, but I can’t remember reading any American sources that use “north-eastern Syria” instead of “northeastern Syria”. Should the title say “northeastern Syria” to reflect American English? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I went with the hyphen only because it had ~300 million ghits versus ~30 million for the contiguous word. El_C 05:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

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.

---

There were another 7 shot by the Turks today, why have they not been added to the total in the info box (ohh and we really should not be doing our own maths anyway)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This source [[1]] gives a total, and its not as high as ours.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Another sources, it says 30 in total [2].Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 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.

Arrests

Who's placing arrests section to this article? I already moved them to Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria#Reactions in Turkey section. Please delete your entry. Beshogur (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it belong to this article. This is not a reaction like a statement by a group or entity. Arrest and censorship should belong here IMO. --Kormin (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So, should I remove from the reaction page? Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathematics, casualties

@Starship.paint: Regarding Turkish casualties, we have source that says 17 killed, and there has been one more casualty since then. Should we not say it's 18? I edited it as 18 but you reverted it. I'd appreciate if you self revert. [3] KasimMejia (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: - we do not do mathematics like that. The 17 source [4] is from 12 October. The 1 source [5] is from 10 October. Who knows if the 1 is counted in the 17? starship.paint (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what I am talking about in Synth above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jarabulus is in Syria, not Turkey. Why was the 10 October source [6] on the shelling of Jarabulus used to cite the death of 1 Turkish civilian? starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: That Jarablus source is about SDF's Jarablus council killing a civilian in Syria, while targeting Jarablus. I'd appriciate you putting it back. You also breached 1RR with these two edits. [7] [8] KasimMejia (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: You got the wrong second source, [9] this source says the casualties from the attack in Suruc yesterday rose to 3, its from 13 october. And besides, I've counted all the casualties and with this they reached 18. It was 7 the first day and now 11 yesterday. 18 total, ok? KasimMejia (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'll be AFK for a few hours. @Starship.paint: I expect you to revert your 2 reverts since I explained them and since you breached 1RR. KasimMejia (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: - I'll be AFK too, and no, I did not breach 1RR, consecutive edits are counted as one revert. We absolutely cannot rely on your counting. We rely on sources stating things directly. starship.paint (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

- I easily found a source for 18 deaths in 5 seconds. bringing the civilian death toll to 18 in Turkey [10] - please stop counting and start searching. starship.paint (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hevrin Khalaf

This is a Kurdish claim the BEEB are not sure how she died [[11]]. So this needs to be attributed,Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: - fixed, no need for other source, that source provided was already enough. [12] starship.paint (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish civilians killed by SDF removed

What's the reason of that? Above, it says Syrian civilians were killed by TAF. So why aren't you removing both? Some users pushing their own agenda should not be accepted. Either you remove both, or you add both. No double standarts please! Beshogur (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

1RR

If you look at the top of the page you will see this article is under 1RR, we have all breached it at this stage I suspect. It now has to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"Invasion" in title

{{requested move/dated|2019 Turkish invasion of north-eastern Syria}}

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria → 2019 Turkish invasion of north-eastern Syria – Most sources speak about Turkish invasion[13][14][15] or Turkey‘s invasion[16][17][18] 61.72.171.186 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This has already been the subject of multiple threads on this page, we don't need another requested move for it so soon. See #Name of the article, #Change to invasion, #Requested move 11 October 2019, #Opinion about NPOV violation in article's title, #Name Needs to change ASAP. Requested move is speedy closed. ST47 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 October 2019 - Turkish Casualties 2 vs 4

There is a mistake in the Per Turkey casualties. It says that Turkish casualties are 4 killed but its just 2. The 2 other were killed in Azaz due to shellings from Tall Rifaat. That has been going on for a long time and its not a part of this operation. The article T24 had made a mistake there as Azaz is not in the region of the operation. So it should be changed from 4 to 2. Here is the source: www.google.nl/amp/s/m.haberturk.com/son-dakika-msb-aci-haberi-duyurdu-zeytin-dali-harekat-bolgesinde-2-asker-sehit-oldu-2530189-amp 31.21.68.15 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The source you linked to stating two casualties occurred due to mortar attacks does not preclude two other people having died under other circumstances, as the T24 article states. Is there any source which specifically refutes the claims in the T24 article? ST47 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User 31.21.68.15 is right. Two of the four died in a YPG mortar attack near Azaz. I myself added the toll of four dead based on the cited source that all four died as part of "Operation Peace Spring". However, except for the one source, most the other sources stated that the two deaths from the mortar attack were in the/as part of "Operation Olive Branch" region of Syria. So I had some reservations about adding four instead of two deaths to the infobox. What made me do it is the SOHR report which stated they documented six Turkish military deaths (by their count), while noting that Turkey acknowledged four deaths. Which would mean SOHR considers those two mortar deaths as being part of this operation and they are counting them as such. So I am not actually sure what to do here. EkoGraf (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, any incidents, deaths or conquests have to be part of this new operation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So can someone change it from 4 to 2? The Turkish defence ministry clearly said that the other two deaths were a part of operation Olive branch (which has not ended yet) Gal17928 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

In two minds, the source does say 4, but not sure its reliable. Do we have any better sources for how many Turkish solders have been killed? Can we have a source for the Turkish MOD saying only 2?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes here: www.google.nl/amp/s/www.ntv.com.tr/amp/turkiye/baris-pinari-harekatinda-sehit-sayisi-2ye-yukseldi,Gbf6_KscwUy_Dc6D1cWAeg . It says clearly that the death toll in the operation rose to 2 and that two soldiers were killed in a seperate attack on the west of the euphrates in Azaz Gal17928 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Its a Turkish source, non neutral. So not, its not a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The current T24 source that claimed (wrongly) that 4 were killed is also a Turkish source. What do you mean? This is the most reliable one yet and isn’t the per Turkey casualties supposed to be of Turkish sources? Gal17928 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean a better source, not one that is no better. Yes of course per Turkey casualties supposed to be of Turkish sources? But we have Turkish sources contradicting each other. So we have a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have just noticed that on the artcile of operation Olive Branch that the per Turkey casualties has been changed from 58 to 60 (those 2 soldiers that were killed yesterday in Azaz). So it should be changed to 2 here then otherwise it doesn’t make any sense Gal17928 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Well it could be that article has it wrong, simple fact is there is confusion with sources contradicting each other.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What? How did the number change to 5 now while the soource give the names of the 4 soldiers that were killed? Can someone fix it back to 4? This is getting very confusing as no such thing has been repported in the Turkish media. Two were killed in azaz and two in the operation zone Gal17928 (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

‘’Sohr claims that Turkey aknowledged that 5 of their soldiers were killed’’, this is absolutely nonsense! No where in the Turkish media can you find a report like this. Its sad to see how much errors and wrong edits there are being made Gal17928 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly we have Turkish sources saying 2, 4 or 5, thus this needs to read 2-5.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Order of Battle" in Infobox

We already have an OB article, why do we also need an OB in the infobox?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

At the moment it just links to the OB article, is that what you were suggesting or would you remove it from the infobox altogether? ST47 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Either, but we should not have both an article about OB and an OB in the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"18 civilians killed in Turkey" Instead of "18 civilians killed in Turkey by SDF shelling"

@Starship.paint: Why did you in your edit here change a statement that said "18 civilians killed in Turkey by SDF shelling" with, 18 civilians killed in Turkey. Yet didn't touch the statement above that said "28 civilians killed in Syria by TAF shelling". What is the purpose of this edit? Do you think these civilians are killed by somebody other than SDF? Do you havea source regarding it? Or do you simply want to change the fact that SDF did in fact kill civilians? I have re added this statement back into the article per the source that claims the civilians in Turkey are killed by SDF shelling. I really wonder your explanation for it. [19] KasimMejia (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It does seem to be only fair to treat both sides evenly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So you agree with me right? Finally we agree on something. KasimMejia (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and KasimMejia: - I removed it because the claim failed verification. A civilian wounded in a mortar strike from Syria the previous day in the Turkish border town of Suruc died, Anadolu news agency also reported Saturday, bringing the civilian death toll to 18 in Turkey. Turkey’s interior minister said hundreds of mortars, fired from Syria, have landed in Turkish border towns. The source does not say the SDF fired the mortars. It only says the mortars came from Syria. We’re not supposed to make the logical jump per WP:V. Can you please assume good faith instead of thinking I want to whitewash whatever the SDF is doing. I’ve never even heard of them before this week. Please just get a source to support your claim. starship.paint (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Who else could have done it from Syria then? ISIS? Also Turkish sources did say they were by SDF, looks like they are removed and replaced with another source. And this to me still feels like an attempt at white washing and WP:V being your excuse for it. I don't see any reason for "by SDF" to be removed unless a source suggest that, someone other than SDF is shelling Turkish cities. KasimMejia (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: - great, you point out, ISIS exists in Syria too. Your post shows you do not understand WP:VNT. I'm not whitewashing, you provide a source that says 18 civilians killed by the SDF and I will support fully. Hell, I would have done this to the other side, if it were so. I've got no horse in this fight. starship.paint (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: That was easy. [20] here, lol. KasimMejia (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: - good job, that is really all that is needed! I will add it. starship.paint (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality Tag on top of the page

Why is this here? There isn't an ongoing discussion about it so I'm gonna ask the user who placed it (@Slatersteven: to either take it out or start a discussion about it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Much of the above threads are about just this. As I have said (more then once) as long as the article relies overly much on sources from one side of the conflict there are POV concerns. That concern does not go way just because there is no point in reiterating it 15 times, addressing it by removing potentially biased sources does.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Specific issue (If you want them all again).

• Trivial "victories" (such as taking a whole HUMVEE) listed as if they are significant.

• Over credulous reporting of civilian casualties in Turkey, for example 2 journalists were wounded, sourced only to Turkish media. Again very trivial anyway.

But most have (for now) have been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Both those have symbolic value rather than significance. The injury of 2 civilians wouldn't be listed but targeting of journalists filming has more significance. Also a single Humwee is significant because it is a weapon not supplied to Turkey by the US but supplied to SDF. (another example of this is the Javelin missile). For that I would suggest keeping those. I am happy that most points have been dealt with and would appreciate you taking it out now that these two have been discussed. Besides according to Template:POV#When to remove number 3, a POV template should be taken out " In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." The tag can stay only for a while after the discussion ends, and I don't see an active discussion over it for over 12 hours. Thanks and goodnight. KasimMejia (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said POV issues, We cannot use Turkish media to claim that the journalists were targeted (the implication being it was deliberate), The HUMVEE's capture tells us what, that The US are backing the Kurds in this current fight? And this debate is neither dormant nor not being discussed (and this also does not mean "not been replied to in the last half hour" (or even 12 hours) you have already been told at ANI that replies do not have to be immediate).Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Good points. This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the below thread about Turkish casualties means the problem has not gone away, in war both sides exaggerate. It would be beast to not use any media from involved parties.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And see below about the reliability of videos of funerals.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, My very best wishes, and KasimMejia: The fact that the US has armed the SDF is indisputable and very well documented. Even in the Northern Syria Buffer Zone article we detailed that up until just a few weeks ago, the US was still arming and equiping the group. At the same time, "Turkish forces captured a whole HUMVEE" is neither a victory, nor something even remotely noteworthy enough to be featured on an article regarding an entire offensive. It's a bogstandard utility vehicle and not even that great of evidence for US backing, as US HUMVEES have been rife in the middle east since the US invasion of Iraq. If that had not been the case, I would have seen a reason to include it. So how about we remove that and instead add a blurb to the article, which states that the US had armed and equipped the SDF all the way until the start of the offensive? I think that gets the message across. Goodposts (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the part about supposed attacks by Kurds on Turkish civilians as the sources used were clearly not reliable. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Front lines" GIF

Hello all. What's the sourcing for File:Changing frontlines of the Turkish offensive in Rojava, 2019.gif? The image itself says "own work" and there's no reference in the article for it. ST47 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's taken from our Syrian Civil War detailed map, in which each of the changes to the map are cited. Should likely be indicated that that is where the information is taken from though.-Thespündragon 06:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkey says 4 soldiers KIA. SOHR says Turkey acknowledged 5 soldiers KIA.

Do we include SOHR claiming Turkish acknowledgement as Turkish acknowledgement? [21] Turkey still says 4 killed, any other claims by SOHR should be mentioned in its own section. KasimMejia (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, we can just wait in this case. We can keep it at 4 (until Turkey acknowledges?) ... and a few days later, this will be 6 or even more and reported by Turkey and this current issue will be all moot. El_C - this is exactly how live coverage of an ongoing battle isn't compatible with 1RR.... starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK so who is gonna revert.. ? KasimMejia (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My point throughout.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Turkish president Erdogan just announced that 2 Turkish soldiers and 16 FSA rebels have been killed till now. Can we use that as a source (will show source soon)? Gal17928 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Which contradicts everyone else, even his own media.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source: www.google.nl/amp/s/haberglobal.com.tr/gundem/cumhurbaskani-erdogan-30-35-kilometrelik-bir-derinlige-kadar-inecegiz-9664/amp . It clearly says that during the operation 2 soldiers and 16 FSA fighters died. What else do I need to show? Its what the Turkish president says. We are talking about the per Turkey claim, not independent or Sohr claims so why is it so difficult to understand this? I have said this yesterday and now today again, the number of per Turkey killed soldiers should be changed from 4 to 2 Gal17928 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be changed from 5 to 2 (whoever came up with 5 I just don’t understand) Gal17928 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Because we have other Turkish sources saying 4.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR bias against FSA and Turkey

We talked about this back at Operation Olive Branch, but just to be sure. SOHR has a heavy anti-turkey bias and cleary partisanly supports YPG. Their casualty numbers are very unreliable. SOHR inflates FSA deaths and deflates YPG deaths. Needbrains (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea about SOHR, but note that up until now this has not been claimed here. But as a human rights body it can be said they are non neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree SOHR is not neutral. But neither are Turkish sources nor the SDF. I propose that we edit upon all these based on visual confirmation. Meaning if there is visual evidence of it taking place, such a video. Then we should post it. Example, civilians killed or towns captured under video. So far all Turkish civilian casualties are visually confirmed. (Funerals have taken place and names shared). But when SOHR claims that Turks shot civilians deliberately without video, I find it biased and hard to belive. KasimMejia (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, we are supposed to use the best sources available, and that mean neutral ones. By the way Funerals have taken place and names shared neither confirms how they died, or if they died. And in the modern age videos can be faked or altered.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR is not neutral though. KasimMejia (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think I said that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So what source do you propose we use? KasimMejia (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ones that are not Turkish or Syrian...that is all I am going to say before I get sarky.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So EU and US media..? KasimMejia (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Among others , yes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SOHR is considered an authoritative source on Syria by independent news media and as such is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia (after numerous discussions) and has constantly been used for anything Syria-related for the past 8 years. To be more specific, it is considered a highly reliable source when it comes to casualty figures and territorial changes of control. If you consider it unreliable, the proper course of action is to open up an offical Wikipedia discussion at the noticeboards. However, like I said, SOHR's reliability has already been discussed probably a dozen times over the past eight years, always ending with a consensus it can be used, if properly attributed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an RSN matter now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that independent journalists are practically non-existent in Syria, this was discussed numerous times before. And the source that is most often cited by reliable media outlets for anything regarding casualty figures or territorial advances/loses is SOHR. Due to this, if properly attributed to SOHR, their reports can be included and we let our readers decide whether they trust it or not. As per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, we show everyone's point of view and do not exclude one over the other. Between, if we excluded SOHR's reports, we would have to exclude all of the Turkish claims as well and that would leave us with probably 95 percent less material than we have now. PS Youtube, Twitter or any kind of social media videos are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and are not accepted. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Or we could use third party RS who use them. And (yes) by the way I am saying we should exclude both sides partisan sources, and have said so from almost my first post.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to Turkish and SDF sources, I generally think both are highly unreliable. And in my early years as a Wikipedia editor I would have probably agreed with you their sources should be excluded. But I have found this usually leads to bitter edit wars and have found the best course of action, while sticking to Wikipedia's neutrality, is to present both sides point of view (properly attributed), and let the readers decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for SOHR, like I said, my experience with them has shown that even though they are anti-Assad they have been shown to report generally correct information. For example, they constantly provided reliable information regarding casualties and territory to the extent that they have been accused by the rebels at some points of being pro-Assad when they reported on government gains. This has been confirmed by editors when comparing their territorial claims with those of the pro-Assad Masdar and we found they overlap in 90 percent of the cases. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A big Agree with what EkoGraf said. The SOHR has an anti-Assad and pro-opposition bias, but in general reports accurately. In articles relating to a conflict between the Syrian govt and rebel forces we often used the pro-Assad al-Masdar news to balance it out, but in almost all cases the information overlapped completely. In this case, the SOHR has no "horse in the race". Goodposts (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to back up any claims about SOHR. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Status of RasUl Ayn.

Hi @Pali Upadhyay: and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me start by saying that the current article we are discussing is sanctioned under 1RR, meaning users are not allowed to make more than 1 revert over 24 hours. With regards to your edit here [22] I'd appreciate you reverting it because I believe you misread it. SOHR claims that Taf and Sna still controls parts of RasUl Ayn, including the border crossing and the industrial area. Here I am quoting directly from the source "...SOHR published yesterday, Saturday, that the Turkish forces with the Syrian factions loyal to them were able to expand their control in... ... Aksas in the Ras al-Ayn area, in addition to their control of the Industrial area and Ras al-Ayn Crossing area inside Ras al-Ayn city." [23] Here's source once again. Thanks and welcome. KasimMejia (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Then lets go wit what Neutral RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I've gone through the reports again and there's some ambiguity to the status of the industrial area currently while the other sources states that the TFA and SNA were reported to have taken them yesterday. The currently linked source states that, "...regain control of the most of areas into which the Turkish forces and their loyal factions advanced yesterday, in Ras Al-Ayn city in Al-Hasakah countryside, after fierce clashes between the both parties, which led to the withdrawal of the factions from the Industrial Area, and the clashes are concentrated now in the area of Ras Al-Ayn crossing..."[24]. So I'd prefer to wait it out before any more edits. Also the source you linked is already linked for the paragraph above regarding Suruk.Pali Upadhyay (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok it looks here [25] like the newest statement by SOHR claims industrial are and border crossing under SNA. This was posted before this [26]]. So it would be correct for you to self revert. KasimMejia (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither appears to be time stamped.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

They are not time stamped but SOHR posts newest articles from top to bottom order, so that's why it's newer. KasimMejia (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, that seems logical.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to it but it seems the paragraph that does mention Ras-an Ayl is a recantation of an older publication from yesterday (Saturday, 12 October 2019) Here's the quote referencing it, "And the SOHR published yesterday, Saturday, that the Turkish forces with the Syrian factions loyal to them were able to expand their control in Tal Abyad area since the start of “Peace Spring” Operation on the 9th of October 2019, where they controlled 31 areas at least in Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, they are Mazra’aat al-Hammadi, Abu Qabr,.....Alok, Kashto, and Aksas in the Ras al-Ayn area, in addition to their control of the Industrial area and Ras al-Ayn Crossing area inside Ras al-Ayn city." Pali Upadhyay (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: I think you should just revert. Your argument is original research. Saying they also controlled industrial zone in an 9 october article doesn't make sense. They did start control it then and stil hold it now. That doesn't mean they are writing the same article again. I don't understand your argument. KasimMejia (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: My argument is that the report states that it is requoting its own report from Saturday (from the beginning of the operation on 9th till 12th) so it wouldn't be able to account for any changes on the 13th of October. Its more recent article which updates the number of areas has removed the areas within the Ras al Ayn city as well.[27] Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We really do need to start waiting and using third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible war crimes

The New York Times, Reuters, and other sources writes about Turkish-backed Syrian National Army executing Kurdish politicians and other captives. Anyone going to write that in? 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the RS I have seen its a case of "according to SOHR".Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And is that not worth to mention? 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we already do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But not the part about war crimes. I'm not going to add it myself, just a heads up that it might be worth mentioning if it's agreed upon first. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Are they called war crime by RS? We have to be careful about weight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It writes about the executions as possible war crimes. I first read it in Aftenposten, a Norwegian newspaper, and then I looked it up in The New York Times. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible does not mean is. When they are called war crimes there might be a reason to include this. At this tim,e we have all kinds of claims, many of which will no doubt be false, after all the first casualty of war is truth.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. But there is a difference between "the death of civilians" and the "execution of civilians" and on video even. I'm also not saying that I or we should decide if it is war crimes, but it is the New York Times and I thought it might be worth mentioning or at least keep an eye on it. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And as I said, we do mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And as I said: there is no mention of possible war crimes in the Wikipedia article despite a third party source. I will reference the source here for you to read and let you decide. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot view the NYT, can you provide a word for word quote as to what they say about it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And I quote: "The killing of two Kurdish captives by Arab fighters — a possible war crime — is an indication of the ethnically tinged hatreds flaring in the wake of President Trump’s pullback of American forces in the area." 176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Then wp:undue raises, this is not enough for a section, or even a mention of war crimes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Then I defer to your and Wikipedia's ruling on the matter. Just out of curiousity: How many sources would it take talking about it as war crimes?176.11.149.107 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Its not just the number of sources, its also the fact they say it may only possibly be a war crime, and that it involves the death of just 2 people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Now the U.S. Defence Secretary is also commenting that it appears Turkey is comitting war crimes. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we could not ass a line "the U.S. Defence Secretary has stated Turkey may be committing war crimes".Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And the Washington Post states clearly that war crimes are being comitted. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we just add a section for civilian casualties and add all the details in there. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

M4

Not sure we need such blow by blow accounts, but the translation of the source seems to say clashed are occurring there, not that any part of it has been cut.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its cut at this point. Even if we don't count the videos circulating online, SDF released a statement [28] telling people to stop using the highway because it's been captured. Also SOHR says, "TAF,SNA captured a village there (M4)". KasimMejia (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Really not sure twitter is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

seperate articles for individual battles

Do the battles in Tell Abyad and Ras al-ayn/sarikani merit their own articles, like in Operation Euphrates Shield where individual battles and offensives have their own articles? --90.252.204.250 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not enough material.. KasimMejia (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At this time no there is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ISIL

It maybe time we had a separate section on claims about ISIS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not enough material. Only claims about some escapees. KasimMejia (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And at least one suicide bomb. This is actually, of rather major (and international) importance.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of those people in the camps are woman and children family members of ISIS fighters rather than actual fighters. There also isn't enough confirmation on it. Just a claim by SDF. Not even SOHR who is aligned with SDF confirmed it. KasimMejia (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Its also getting a lot of coverage, far more then some of the stuff we include. [[29]] [[30]] [[31]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already included isn't it? Many things are getting a lot of coverage but we can't have a separate section for all of them. Take a look at US withdrawal for example. They announced complete withdrawal today. And what about civilians killed in Turkey? Shouldn't we have a section for that? As well as those killed in Syria? KasimMejia (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This has international repercussions, its is not just about this conflict. But no agreement is going to be reached.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an agreement be reached lol? Here we are discussing. If there is a source saying this will have international repercussions than we can too, otherwise its OR. And not enough material just yet. Just a single a report (Dubious since only SDF claim) of some detainees escaping. KasimMejia (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not quite, rather the entire offensive has " “detrimental effect” on counter-ISIS operations which had “effectively stopped”" [[32]]. So yes it has had an impact outside and beyond both the conflict and irrespective of any ISIL impact on the ground.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude that site is literally the biggest tabloid on the internet, with headlines of World War 3 and aliens everyday. I don't think its a reliable source. KasimMejia (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been discussed over at RSN, and sadly it is usable. But here is CNN [[33]], want more?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No CNN is enough. And what are you asking me for? Isn't this already included in the article? US said a dozen times that the offensive could damage anti ISIS efforts. (what cnn says here too). But really has ISIS indeed grown yet? Only thing we got is an SDF claim of some displaced people escaping. It's not enough material. KasimMejia (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC) KasimMejia (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That is is important enough (and separate enough) to warrant a section of its own. I thought I had made that clear with "It maybe time we had a separate section on claims about ISIS".Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And put what material into it? Just a section for the SDF claim of IDP escapees? KasimMejia (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And everything else mentioned here, that is why its needs its own section, its not just about one incident or claim.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If you mean CNN by everything mentioned that looks like not enough material. KasimMejia (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bombings, escapees, disruption of counter terrorism, international concern, who guards the prisons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it has enough material on its own, things like US withdrawal and civilian casualties on both sides have more material to have their own section but we are not adding them to stick to the operation. Don't agree with an ISIS section since lack of material and direct link. KasimMejia (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There should be a section on ISIL escapees. There have been numerous reports of the escape of ISIL prisoners since the beginning of the offensive, with some of them directly relating to Turkish airstrikes on SDF positions. At the same time, the SDF has now stated that fighting Turkey's offensive is going to be a higher priority for them than guarding prisons. In any case, this is a result of Turkey's operation, even if Turkey didn't intend for it to happen. Goodposts (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's been numerous reports of ISIS escapees directly related to Turkish airstrike but an SDF allegation about those two. I read today an article where SDF had claimed ISIS had escaped due to Turkish airstrikes. This is just one sided statement and not neutral, SDF has previously almost everyday accused Turkey of supporting ISIS as well to receive US support. If we have somebody other than the SDF confirming this then we should write a section I believe. Similar to how we are not writing every Turkish allegation about SDF. KasimMejia (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Two pictures of Kurdish protests in Europe

@Tobby72: Do we need two pictures of this? Adding more than one picture of protest just fills the page with unnecessary pictures. One should be enough to explain some people protested it. KasimMejia (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed major changes at the article about Syrian Gov

@Goodposts: I think you need to slow down before adding information about SAA entering Manbij and Kobane. This has not happened yet and there are only reports of an agreement being reached, so I took it out of the lede and placed into the operation section. But I don't want to revert anything so I'd appreciate you taking SAA out of support. An alleged deal being reached is not really support. Just de jure gossip. KasimMejia (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm only writing what the sources are saying. In this case - what several reputable, independent and neutral sources are concurring on. Reuters, Al-Arabiya and Defence Post all agreed that the deal was reached, so this is definitely evidence enough for it's inclusion in Wikipedia. Goodposts (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course its enough, is it enough to be in the lede though? If they do indeed move into Manbij then we should add it to the lede. No action on the ground so far. KasimMejia (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that such a deal was reached and agreed upon at all demonstrates that the Syrian Government prefers to back the SDF against Turkey rather than vice-versa. Syrian State Media also just announced that the Syrian Army was headed north. Goodposts (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

In terms of adding it to the lede I'd advise waiting until SAA actually captures a town. Even a single town or a village.. For now, just gossips. Also please do take it out the infobox now because an agreement to hand over areas is definitely not support against Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't say I agree here. In pages such as the Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019), Turkey was added as a supporter in much the same way. Again, I'm only saying what the sources are saying. Goodposts (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean you don't agree in terms of infobox right? BTW I don't wanna take topic too far but to answer your reference, Turkey actually supplied weapons to rebels in that, that's why its under support. And about sources, do any of these source say SAA is supporting SDF now? KasimMejia (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The point was to show that you didn't need to control territory in order to 'support' a given side. Plus, as that last source I referenced said, Syrian troops are already being deployed. Goodposts (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've self reverted and put it back to lede [34]. KasimMejia (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Thank you for the civility. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Wealth of new Information from video.

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 am currently going to be adding sections on October 9th of the bombed cities and SDF perspective (Someone should do a Turkish perspective and if no does i will try to do it.) However in the mean time take this video by a member of the IFB although the video is highly biased in the favor of the SDF however it provides news from all over the SDF controlled areas and due to him being a member of the SDF i think that it is a credible source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnPuCVAMd8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is not generally an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 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.

Twitter as a reliable source

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 have replaced a tweet in the infobox with a news source [35]. The tweet was from an unknown user not related to any media outlets. I think tweets can be used if they are from journalists and media outlet account but not from random people such as @HosengHesen, which was used here. And also the cited tweet was deleted. KasimMejia (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 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.

1RR and WP:ANI

I have requested different sanctions for this article at WP:ANI. I think that consensus required for disputed content is a better sanction than 1RR. starship.paint (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the 1RR was placed due to community sanctions, community consensus would be needed to change it. The discussion is ongoing at the thread linked above, if anyone wishes to weigh in. ST47 (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wounded

How does Turkey know how many enemy fighters have been wounded?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Guessing, it seems. starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Guessing only comes after losing faith in your field reports and surveillance footage. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update

1. Complete withdrawal of US troops; US Defence Secretary Mark Esper saaid that "In the last 24 hours, we learned that the Turks likely intend to extend their attack further south than originally planned, and to the west," - meaning far beyond the 30 miles zone [36].
2. Damascus, Kurdish-led SDF held talks at Russian airbase [37] -> Kurds will now fight together with Assad forces against Turkish forces
3. Syrian army is already moving to North [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

'Genius' move by the U.S. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Political wings as belligerents in the infobox.

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

@KasimMejia: Because that's how the given sources describe it. Both of them mention the "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army", but neither of them mentions a "Syrian Interim Government". In addition, a consensus that's usually followed in other articles is to list it as TFSA in the infobox and as "Syrian National Army" in the order of battle. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: I don't understand what that's suppose to mean. Let me ask you again, why are we using SDF's political wing and SNA's military wing? No source mentions the name Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria either. KasimMejia (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: I can't explain the rationale behind that, as I wasn't the one who added that in. I wouldn't object to them being listed as Syrian Democratic Forces, but other wikipedians should give their opinion on this as well. Goodposts (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be best to use the terms actually sourced. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I Agree and propose we follow the sources by referring to the parties in the exact way the sources are by making the following changes:

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

By doing so, we would be following what the sources are stating and avoid the dispute entirely. Courtesy pinging @KasimMejia, 51.174.7.31, Slatersteven, Starship.paint, EkoGraf, and ST47:. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Turkish-Backed Free Syrian Army" name does not exist. You should use their neutral name, which is Syrian National Army. Beshogur (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources refer to it as TFSA. Furthermore, an already established consensus dictates that when discussed, it be listed as TFSA in the belligerent infobox, and as SNA in the order of battle. Goodposts (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's policy we name something per their common name. And the common name for the organisation that is fighting the SDF alongside the Turkish military is the "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army", for which we also have an article. The "Syrian National Army" is their self-proclaimed official name yes, but not the common name under which reliable sources call them. Agree with everything proposed by Goodposts. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Goodposts as well. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Goodposts, as it would be consistent to list all of the specific groups involved. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay fine Goodposts. starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

We all agree about the confusion, bias, and neutral parts. But calling it the Syrian Interim Government and Syrian National Army just isn't neutral. It implies it is the actual interim government of Syria and the actual army of Syria, wich it isn't. The same goes for the Kurdish administration. It also has to do with what they are commonly called. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

75 dead

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

SDF made it I guess, and no. It's the opposite of reliable. Zero visual confirmation and about x30 the number per Turkey and x10 of that of SOHR. KasimMejia (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Visual conformation is not relevant, its a claim made by one side, why should it not be included?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SAA deploying to some towns.

@Abutalub: Can you please add a source for the material you added here [40]? Only source in the article is about SAA deployment at Tabqa city, and no word on a takeover. Or no sources about Tabqa Airbase takeover or deployment there neither. KasimMejia (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Cherrypicked pictures

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

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

TFSA is releasing ISIS prisoners and then blaming SDF

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

https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1183771034501210114

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

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

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

Big revert from the lede

@My very best wishes: Why did you take out a large portion of the lede about Turkish announcement regarding SAA deployment [41]? This is a very important detail, I don't see any reason for its deletion. Turkey is basically saying we will still go in and have agreed with Russia. KasimMejia (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a single phrase, However Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in a press conference on 14 October that Turkey had received a positive response from Russia on Kobani and that Turkey was at the execution phase of its Manbij decision.. What does it mean "a positive response"? A positive response about what? How this is related to "the execution phase of its Manbij". And what is "the execution phase of its Manbij"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess positive response means, Russia agreed Turkish takeover of Kobani and Manbij execution means the offensive on Manbij starting, which started shortly afterwards. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

But regardless, why have you taken it out? Now the lede looks missing, there are statements of SAA coming to aid, then suddenly moves to Manbij offensive starting. As if Turkey didn't make a statement about it before starting the offensive. I'd like you to place it back. KasimMejia (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not something "you guess". What exactly the source tells? My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So you do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have no idea what this phrase actually means. So is the reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I formatted that wrong, it was not a response to you. "Positive" can mean anything, especially is this age of spin.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Formatting

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

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

Twitter as source

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

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

1RR

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

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

ISIS escape

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

I've replaced Sabah with Hurriyet, though they quoted the Trump tweet nevertheless. Trump hasn't accused Turkey of ISIS prisoners yet, in fact supported, saying Turkey will take care of them. But he did accuse SDF of them, saying Kurds may be releasing some to get the US involved. Also I don't understand your revert, thanks for self reverting after 1RR warning though. If we are including an SDF claim, why shouldn't we include that of Turkeys. And better yet Trumps? KasimMejia (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So we are all clear, this is what I want to remove: The offensive also caused at least 750 ISIS affiliates escape from their detention camp. SDF accused Turkey stating they escaped after Turkish bombs struck near the prison compound.[39] While US President Donald Trump accused SDF on Twitter saying "Kurds may be releasing some ISIS fighters to get the United States involved".[40] And Turkey stated that SDF released ISIS prisoners before their arrival.[41]

The dust has not settled on this and US President Donald Trump is known for saying things that ... aren't always backed up by RS. In fact, we have a whole wikipedia page on this fascinating phenomenon. We do not know the details of any sort of "causation" for the escape, only that it happened, at present, unless there is some breaking news I have just missed. I don't think in such a situation of uncertainty, that we should be giving any accusations weight. No causation for the escape should be stated at all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I know alot of people criticize Trump but he is the US president after all, the most powerful person in the world according to many and the top decision maker of the US. So his statements do matter, whether they have sense or not. KasimMejia (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As the most powerful executive in the world and the States' top decision maker, his executive decisions do matter. But he ranks way down the line when it comes to the nation's great orators, military minds or comics, so his observations and ponderances are no big deal (outside of journalism, where they've become more valued than murder stories). If he decides something, then we'll make like the news and "quote" his alleged rationale. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You're correct that the detail matters, but it does not belong in the lede. Not everything Trump says is so important that it trumps [unfortunate pun not intended] everything else. The lede is for summarizing the most important things for a reader to comprehend. Wiki is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we will have a better idea of the overall significance of this event once the dust settles. --Calthinus (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not the user to place it to the lede anyway. An user added it with only the SDF statement on it. So I added the Trump and Turkish statements to make it more neutral. Here is my edit adding neutrality. [42] KasimMejia (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with EtienneDolet that it should be included in the lead. Obviously, this is one of main concerns about the "operation", and it is already happening - as a matter of fact. I also agree with Calthinus - no statements by the Trump and Turkish side about it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"no statements by the Trump and Turkish side about it" Wow, even if you want this it cannot be done because Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality and non POV WP:NPOV. According to you this whole article should be written based on SDF accounts I assume. KasimMejia (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the answer will be "no, third party RS".Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mvbw: Imo, we should state the fact that the escape happened, for sure. I don't think we should be saying why. An intelligent reader can figure out that it's not a coincidence that the escape happened during the offensive. But do we really have enough sourcing to positively assert a cause at this point? For sure we should discuss why in the body; I fear having it in the lede is an invitation to future disputes over whose speculations to put or not put there. Right now we have "caused" EDIT: actually it says "allowed" -- I'd rather it said "During the operation, 750 ISIS prisoners escaped from prison in ..." --Calthinus (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think keeping it simple in the lead is the way to go. ISIS' role in the SCW is undeniably one of the most important. The escape itself is quite notable and a pretty big development. Our readers should at least be reading something about it from the get-go. Besides, we have an entire section about it in the body, the lead should summarize. 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And I also agree with Slaterseven. If and when RS say this, then we can put it there. For now, no. --Calthinus (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion simply does not belong to the lead, it can be included in the body of page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with this too. --Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the most we could have is a mention of the concerns about escapes, and no more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there are no doubts that at least one mass escape from a camp had already happen, although different sources provide different numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

True, but the fear of one is what is significant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably even more significant. This is not just a fear, but well known strategy by ISIS they used in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus I think something like "western leaders have expressed concerns about the impact this will have on counter ISIL operations", rather then about escapes as such.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

• Can someone please remove false claim by D.Trump from the lead - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

One sided statement in the lede.

Why are we including SDF's statement regarding ISIS prisoners, but have removed that of Turkeys [43]? Trumps accusation of SDF was removed after a discussion [44] but removing Turkish statement was never discussed. This is an active conflict and we are required to write about both sides statements to maintain neutrality WP:NPOV. Anybody object to inclusion of Turkish statement please state your reason below. KasimMejia (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Double inclusion.

@Slatersteven: Can you revert this edit [45] because you double included material already included in detail at the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria#Western sanctions and suspension of arms sales. We should not we double writing anything except those in the lede. Which is a summary. KasimMejia (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE

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

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

Yeni Safak

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

We can change the sources, but Yeni Şafak article looks like a witch-hunt. Say which one, I can try to change it. Beshogur (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No worse then most of the involved media.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose the entree of bigotry with a side of misinformation is not as bad as the entree of misinformation with the side bigotry we get with some of the other journals involved, like, Sabah, with this real gem (translate it, it's about a US plot to turn Turkey gay with chemical bombs, because, you know, that's where gay people come from) [[46]]. If you want Turkish news, Hurriyet is better. It is also essentially pro-AKP nowadays but it still behaves like a serious organization run by professionals, not like Yeni Safak or Sabah who just make up crap. --Calthinus (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish sources

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

@Slatersteven: "Turkish sources should not be used for statements of fact (even in the info box)". Says who? And why did you add a neutrality tag based on your personal belief? KasimMejia (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

wp:npov, wp:rs makes it clear that any statement of fact must be attributed unless it is by third party (I.E. uninvolved) parties. As to why I put the tag, for that reason, this is an ongoing conflict in which both sides will use propaganda, so any claim is open to doubt. Also the degree if trivial claims being added looks unnuetral, every claim made by Turkey (not matter how trivial) is being added. When the article only uses third party RS the tag can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: There is a thing called visual confirmation. Which specific Turkish source do you believe is false? Both RasUlAyn and M4 highway are supported by videos showing them under TAF control. Please take out your POV tag. IF SDF makes a claim supported by video, you can add it is a the same way. KasimMejia (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the video evidence for RasUlAyn[47] and here is M4 highway [48]. KasimMejia (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Statements are being attributed to sources they do not make, Ras al-Ain town has not been captured Tel Halaf in the Ras al-Ain has been (according to the source). Thus this raises doubts (in my mind) as to general neutrality, see all the threads above. Casualties not being evenly reports, absolute trivia, and misrepresentation, all in favour of one side. That is lack of neutrality. I do not believe any Turkish source is false, I believe they are not third party or Neutral. What they say may (MAY!) be accurate, or it may be false. The article overly relies on one sides announcements, thus is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Ras Al Ayn has been captured according to the Turkish source and there is video of SNA fighters inside the town. Do you believe it is still not captured despite all this? And if you believe there is more material on Turkish civilian casualties why don't you report the other sides casualties instead of alleging that its not neutral? As far as sources say Turkish sides casualties are the only one we have detailed information about. If you believe there are casualties on the other side you are welcome to add them. KasimMejia (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

All that is irrelevant read wp:v, if the source does not say it we cannot use the source to say it. By the way, the above is exactly what I mean, "its my job to add the other sides story", no, its all of our jobs to be neutral and add relevant information. Recent edits included (again read above) adding to all the Turkish civilian dead, but ignored some caused by turkey with the claim "Turkey has now has more civilians killed" (which was not true, at the point the edit was made), using of course only Turkish sources)). As I said there is an over reliance on one sides POV, and thus the article is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "if the source does not say it we cannot use the source to say it." WHAT? THE source DOES SAY it, didnt you even read the source before starting this discussion? I even added to source up there for you to read? KasimMejia (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Are you still in this discussion or not? KasimMejia (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I see the source in question has now been removed. The BBC source does not say Ras al-Ain has been captured, it says there is still heavy fighting there. Nor dose the SOHR source say that, its just talks about villages in the Ras al-Ain area.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can I ask you why you suddenly leave the discussion when proven wrong? You did it yesterday too. [49] KasimMejia (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not, Christ I cannot even respond to this without making it seem like a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Starship.paint I used Twitter once, and that was the twitter account of the media outlet TRT World. You think we shouldn't? KasimMejia (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: - when something is important, articles will be written about it. Not just tweets. Think of how people will read the article in 10 years time. WP:10YT. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The last sentence of the intro has this ref [50], which indicates that Syria is sending SAA to the area. There's also this ref [51] (in the 14 October subsection) indicating that Russians have deployed to the Aleppo area. It seems like enough support to me to warrant infobox inclusion.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How is that support? They are taking land from them basically, for all taken into mind, they might as well be listed under Turkish side for cutting up SDF. A source needs to directly state the word support or supply of arms for us to call it that. KasimMejia (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Most sources write about them being allied now. That should be enough for now. 176.11.149.107 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

It's written about it in an BBC article for example.[52] As for the U.S. support they have been supporting the SDF for years with weapons and other material support. And I believe there was an article about the U.S. not stopping that material support. However I will have to look that up again to be certain.[53] 176.11.149.107 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows US armed SDF until the operation, but there are no reports of it continuing since the operation began. KasimMejia (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the US supporting the SDF after the start of the offensive. I even read somewhere that Trump gave the order for arms deliveries to cease at about this time. The captured HUMVEE was likely delivered to the SDF prior to the start of the offensive. The article that the fellow editor was referencing was dated about three weeks ago, when the US was still supplying arms and vehicles to the SDF. However, that was just over a week before the start of the offensive. In order to include the US as a supporter in the context of this offensive, a source that clearly states that some form of materiel support has been given to the SDF after the offensive began should be added. Goodposts (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Turkish-backed FSA or Syrian Interim Government?

@Karma1998:, @Takinginterest01:, @David O. Johnson:, @EkoGraf:. The sources refer to the Syrian allies of Turkey as Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army or Syrian National Army. — [54], [55], [56], [57]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

 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) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have Turkish sources for it. BBC[[58]] Another source saying Syrian National Army belongs to their "Ministry of National Defense" of Syrian Interim Government.[[59]] Turkey's The Independent saying the same.[[60]] Another source OdaTV.[[61]] Here Euronews's news, Abdurrahman Mustafa, head of SIT, saying "this army we founded" (ctrl f; Oluşturduğumuz bu ordu).[[62]] So it's obvious that they're under interim government control. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria[

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

Yeah agree. Though the announcement of it is still important. KasimMejia (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not as (in effect) a result, not until it has happened.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you propose it be changed? KasimMejia (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove it from the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shall it say, withdrawal of US troops except for Kobani? They totally left Manbij according to the US's own Twitter account [63]. I also imagine they left Raqqa and parts of North West corner as well, since Gov is entering. KasimMejia (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, why? For a start, what you imagine is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying lets write that they've withdrew from where I imagine. Just think there should be some note of US withdrawal in the infobox since SAA is entering many areas. Otherwise it makes it seem as if SAA is entering areas with US presence still. KasimMejia (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Then we just do not list those areas (if we must list every place anyone enters, which I doubt).Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the current note about complete withdrawal should stay since the order has been given. And the order happened because of the recent events I think. US decided to pack up since SAA starting coming as well as the Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And order can be rescinded, until it has been fully carried out. Read wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How are they gonna rescind it when the SAA has entered those towns? Are they gonna fight SAA to enter Manbij and Raqqa? KasimMejia (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not for us the second guess, we report what has happened, not what might happen. At this time the US has not fully pulled out of Northern Syria and until they accounced they have we cannot say they have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Then lets change it to, start of complete US withdrawal? KasimMejia (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not a failed verification [64] by the way. Trump said all US personel except those in Al-Tanf would be leaving Syria. This statement is written in the citation. Tanf is a non SDF rebel pocket with US troops in the south west corner. KasimMejia (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: here is the statement, in the link """""Trump said in a statement Monday that US troops "coming out of Syria will now redeploy and remain in the region to monitor the situation and prevent a repeat of 2014, when the neglected threat of ISIS raged across Syria and Iraq. A small footprint of United States forces will remain at At Tanf Garrison in southern Syria to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS. """"" so please take that false out. KasimMejia (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Will, not have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What? KasimMejia (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Will redeploy does not mean have redeployed, future Vs present tense.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Do you support changing it to "Start of complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria"? KasimMejia (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, as no source says it has yet begun.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It did begin, maybe not per this source but per about a dozen in the article. Examples being US withdrawal from Turkish OP area, Ain Issa and Manbij [65]. So it did begin. KasimMejia (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That is what "failed verification" means, the source does not support the text. Change the source and then we can re-word it to your suggestion..Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Here you can to it yourself "*Start of complete withdrawal of US forces in northern Syria[66][Trump's Syria decision sparks scramble to safely remove US troops]" Dont use the quotes. KasimMejia (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Almost there but you removed the first source [67]. Now it's once again a failed verification. You should add the first source again. KasimMejia (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the one I have been saying does not support the text from the start. This is my last word on this matter, read wp:v.

It does support it? Didn't you even read it? I'll write for you since you missed it. "Trump said: A small footprint of United States forces will remain at At Tanf Garrison in southern Syria to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS. " So no other forces will remain in the SDF area.... KasimMejia (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Dude why are you not adding the source to it? KasimMejia (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Shouldn't it be labeled as "withdrawal of all soldiers (about 1000 left in Syria), except for a few dozen in certain areas..", or something like that? Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

When they have redeployed maybe, they have not yet been.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It should say either, start of US withdrawal from Syria except the Al-Tanf pocket. Or just start of US withdrawal from Northern Syria. KasimMejia (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The original source of 80,000 Turkish soldiers seems to be Yeni Safak? So maybe it would be better to cite Yeni Safak than parlamentohaber?

https://www.parlamentohaber.com/turk-ordusundan-80-bin-asker-ile-operasyon-hazirligi/ "Russian Press: “Operation will be managed from Şanlıurfa and Kilis. The troops will enter more than 10 points simultaneously. There are 80 thousand troops on the border with Turkey."

I searched "80,000 soldiers" in Russian and found this source:

https://www.vpk-news.ru/news/51462 "The fears of the US military are not in vain: according to information from open sources, an eighty-thousand-strong ground force grouping and more than a thousand pieces of equipment are concentrated on the border."

So hopefully the open source is searchable in the internet. I searched "80,000 soldiers" in Turkish and found these sources:

https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-syria/turkey-ready-biggest-cross-border-op-its-history-pro-govt-daily "Turkey has made all necessary preparations for the biggest cross-border operation in the country's history, into Syria's Manbij and east of the Euphrates river, pro-government daily Yeni Şafak reported on Monday." Some 80,000 Turkish soldiers are ready for the new operation in areas controlled by the Syrian-Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), according to the news outlet.

https://www.yenisafak.com/dunya/kibris-harekatinin-2-kati-3430915 "Accordingly, the 500-kilometer line in the border area and the southern axis of Münbic's operation will begin with 80,000 people will participate in the operation. These figures, Turkey has carried out over 40 thousand people in 1974, the Cyprus Peace Operation means to be a larger operation."

Maybe Yeni Safak is the "open source" cited by the "Russian press"? It is at least cited by ahvalnews. Even if Yeni Safak isn't reliable (aligned with the AKP), it would surely be a better source than "parlamentohaber", which is openly relying on second-hand information without specifying sources. In any case, I could imagine the AKP leaking this kind of information to AKP-aligned outlets like yenisafak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.252.141 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no way 80,000 soldiers participating this operation. This operation does not include conscripts like others. Turkey barely has over 100k professionals, that'll make 80 percent. Beshogur (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Argentine army for example was a conscript army when it took the Falklands, so I don't see why not: (ctlF "conscript")

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

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

https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/02/19/a-professional-army-not-far-away-as-conscription-times-set-to-shorten

Even if they did throw 80,000 professionals into Syria, the other 20,000 would still be plenty to lead 150,000 conscripts elsewhere in Turkey. (In times of war Finland plans to lead 280,000 conscripts with just 8,000 professionals.)

Turkish Army never used conscripts in Syrian operations. Provide a source if they did. Beshogur (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Marxist Leninist Communist Party

@Pali Upadhyay: Can you please revert your edit here [68]? The marxist leninist communist party along with other radical leftist groups are a direct part of Rojava and are included under the title Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria I'll give more information on that, here is their umbrella battalion that includes the MLC International Freedom Battalion they are already included not under support but directly under Rojava, since they are already involved in the fight. KasimMejia (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Yeah, I'm looking into it, you seem to be right. Anyways if they are included as part of NES, the MLKP casualties shouldn't be listed separately from the SDF. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like IFB comes under direct command of the SDF so they could also be listed as Allies alongside NES while all their casualties can be folded under a single banner. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: You can remove that casualty from the section and replace them all under Rojava flag if you want. I wasn't the one to add it. Nevertheless IFB is not a part of SDF true yet it is a part of Rojava. So it should be included as one, or as separate SDF and IFB. But its best to keep it under one side Rojava I believe. KasimMejia (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: For the time being, I'm keeping the IBF as separate from Rojava since it doesn't seem to be under the political control of NES, some of them seem to have a presence in other countries and a lot of links to far left movements and insurgencies beyond Rojava. I'd like other people to weigh in on this though. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: Then you should list it as IFB right under AANES, its not a support but direct participation. And not only MLCP but all of IFB. KasimMejia (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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

Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

@Applodion: Why are we calling SDF by this name when there is no source calling them by this? I suggest you revert your edit here [69], find a citation that mentions this name or rename it to SDF. KasimMejia (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What? SDF is the military, "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" is the proto-state. Turkey is fighting the SDF, yes, but also the International Freedom Battalion, the local police and volunteers. The latter do not operate under the SDF umbrella, but as part of the "Autonomous Administration". Applodion (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Well then TFSA should be called the same manner, Syrian Interim Gov. Otherwise its not neutral, see WP:NPOV. KasimMejia (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. We are supposed to use what most sources commonly refer to them as. So let's please settle this now and just use SFD. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I support SDF being used. KasimMejia (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral on usage of SDF vs AA-NES, but I have added two citations for the AA-NES being the party involved, per the request above. -Thespündragon 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Somebody added a source so its fine now. KasimMejia (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the sources, they state SFD, which is what most sources commonly refers to them as. So that's what should be used. But this is my final say, and I won't press it further. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The given sources clearly name the AANES as party in the conflict. See for example Times: "In its call for a general mobilization, the local civilian Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria [...]". Applodion (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is also relevant that it is not solely the SDF, the AA-NES's military, that is involved in the defense, but also AA-NES security forces that are not a part of the SDF, namely the ASAYISH/ISF and the Civil Defense Forces, see the Order of Battle page. -Thespündragon 13:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest a compromise. Adding the SFD below. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

We are not here to change terminology. This word soup [70] is much less common than Rojava [71] by a factor of about 1,000. People say "Rojava". We should too. Also, "autonomous"? No, it is de facto independent and according to Assad de jure part of Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Countries against Turkey sanctions

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

• Bulgaria: https://www.novinite.com/articles/200988/Minister+Zaharieva%3A+Bulgaria+Doesn%27t+Support+the+Economic+Sanctions+against+Turkey