Talk:Operation Euphrates Shield/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality of editors

Forget about the neutrality of the article, as the latest news can be followed from the news. You should worry about the neutrality of Wikipedia's editors. Some editors clearly have an agenda. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP, you are baselessly assuming bad faith from other editors. That is strictly against the rules. This page has seen enough useless fighting over small things. The talk page is for discussion of the content of the article, not to blame others. This is your second time making such allegations. Both the article and the editors seem fine to me. If you continue to make such allegations repeatedly then you will be reported as your behavior is against Focus on discussion of the article, if you have any problem with any edits, talk about the edits instead of accusing others which is of no use to anyone. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User 2A1ZA accusing me of vandalism and propaganda where no vandalism or propaganda has taken place isn't bad faith? Especially in the comment box for edits in the main article where I can't defend myself from these attacks. He shouldn't be doing that. I've never came across him before, he doesn't know me yet he becomes very hostile and accusatory to anyone who doesn't agree with his one dimensional view on this subject. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Black Goat Nomad, I have never "accused you of vandalism" anywhere, and I would appreciate it if you could return to the civil atmosphere of our discussion above, here on the talk page.

BTW, the only two times time I used the term "vandalism" here was as reasoning for undoing two particular edits, one by an anonymous account that had changed the term "map" in a headline on the talk page to the term "mommy", and one by I do not know whom who had changed the sentence in the article on the SDF strategic perspective on the topic into an incomprehensible assembly of unrelated words. If one of those was you, I would kindly ask you to just abstain from such behaviour, actually you appear able and willing to make constructive edits which I and others appreaciate, just stick with that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarabulus north of the Sajur river is in the Manbij plain, so calling it that is not vandalism. It was more preferable than using the Shahba region, which is a political name for an administrative district that doesn't officially exist in a way that covers the whole area, is hoped to be created by only one of the sides in the conflict and is therefore biased. Of course now that Al-rai is another front in the incursions it has reached beyond the Manbij plain, and I would settle on just using the official political name for the area, north Aleppo governorate.

Continuously interfering with other peoples edits, throwing around labels like propaganda and vandalism and nitpicking on anything that mentions Kurd or Kurdish isn't exactly constructive behaviour. Now can we be more grown up and just try to work together to make this article better? Would much appreciate that. In the future, common etiquette if there is disagreement on wording is to seek consensus in the talk pages. Lets do that? Thanks Black Goat Nomad (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

When I looked at the article this morning, there were several changes to the "Background" section. I made two corrections: (1) One was deleting the words that sought to restrict the theater of the topic to the "Manbij plain", because for example active battleground Al-Rai clearly is not within that geographic feature, and many statements about immediate military aims in the operations covered in the article go far beyond the "Manbij plain". (2) The second was to make the sentence about the strategic perspective of the SDF make sense again, because it had been vandalized into an incomprehensible assembly of unrelated words; only in the latter edit I did mention that I undo vandalism. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On a separate note, "Shahba region" (which you feverishly seek to delete from anywhere in the article) is a historic name for the region between Euphrates and Kurd mountains, as evidenced by the fact that many landmarks there bear that name (e.g. the Shahba Reservoir southeast of Mare which SDF seeks to capture these days). The recent Shahba region article on Wikipedia is pretty exclusively focused on the fact that the Rojava institutions officially use that name for an administrative district. However, it is simply the same thing as with the historic "Jazira region", its name inter alia used for Al-Jazira Province and Jazira Canton (or as the name for the adjactent town and district of Cizre in Turkey), a historic name used for a contemporary administrative districts. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There you go again, when have I feverishly sought to delete any mention of Shahba from the article. The only time I edited it was to put it in context and I didn't even delete the name. Your not behaving constructively again. Come on, enough! Black Goat Nomad (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I recall that there had been around half a dozen mentions of the Shahba region in the article, all to describe the dimension of the theater of operations, and they all disappeared with the time of your edits. If it was not you who did that, please accept my sincere apologies for thinking or saying so. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide links for these changes? It seems through ignorance your throwing around accusations which is creating a negative atmosphere. Double check first, I really want to cooperate with you to improve the article and it's been quite difficult so far to say the least. I will take it as an honest mistake or misunderstanding so I will accept your apologies. Thank you. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Due to time constraints, I can only focus on two aspects of the article, namely that everything that is presented with respect to the terms "Syrian Democratic Forces" on the one hand and "Free Syrian Army" on the other hand is factually correct (state of affairs is that with respect to "SDF" this is by and large the case, with respect to "FSA" after some recent edits it is not, in particular as that promotional label is mis-presented as a fictional organizational structure in the infobox). I simply do not have the time to follow the myriad of edits on everything, can just take snapshots (and with due respect, after you so strongly coming out against use of "Shahba region" on the talk page, my apparent mistake of thinking it was you who made the deletions of the term in the article should not have happened, as every mistake should not happen, but it is conceivable why I made that mistake). However, I see that apparently right now "Shahba region" is there/back to describe the geography of the theater in the infobox. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And on a last note, dear Black Goat Nomad, your idea of "common etiquette if there is disagreement on wording is to seek consensus in the talk pages" is what I am trying to do all the time. Actually most edits I do in this article is getting it back to what was discussed at length in the talk page until consensus was reached, but then some editor once again changing the article against the consensus reached. The most prominent example is these persistent attempts to mis-present the promotional label of "Free Syrian Army" as an fictional coherent organizational structure, in particular in the infobox. If you would stop going against talk page consensus in that respect, it would very much appreciate it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

When I first came across this article, the background section started off with calling the area where the Turkish incursion first took place, (Jarabulus north of Sajur river) the Shahba region. This I felt was misleading since it appeared to make out this was its proper name when it isn't the actual name for area. Nor did it explain that Shahba canton is a political division that only the Kurdish led forces would like to establish. Since Jarabulus is within the Manbij plain, i felt it was necessary for maintaining a NPOV to use a widely agreed name for the geographic area, Manbij Plain, instead of contentious political divisions. This was done in good faith.

To call it vandalism is uncalled for. It should be made clear that Shahba is a prospective political division which one side of the conflict hopes to create, with the aim of linking up the non kurdish areas between the cantons of Afrin and Kobane to form a contiguous state. The only purpose of this is to create a factually correct, NPOV article and not to create vandalism. I hope you can act with good faith now you know my motivations.

Sincerely yours, Black Goat Nomad (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So we are setting an example now in how to be good Wikipedia editors, for everyons to follow, dear Black Goat Nomad, ok? From my perspective, the following thing:

(1) I never used the term "vandalism" in the context of removing the term "Manbij plains" from describing the theater of operations. You can look that up in the article history. Please do not once again claim that I would have used the term "vandalism" in the context of removing the term "Manbij plains" from describing the theater of operations.

(2) The article currently is having a major issue, namely another attempt to mis-present, against talk page consensus, the "Free Syrian Army" promotional label as a fictional coherent organizational structure, and as such "belligerent", in the infobox. You did much for this unfortunate state of affairs. As you are rather new to the article, I will assume good faith, that you were not aware that you are going against talk page consensus. But I ask you to re-implement the talk page consensus and correct that top left box of the infobox to the effect that "Free Syrian Army" is presented as what it is, a promotional label, and not mis-presented as what it is not, a coherent organizational structure.

Sincerely Yours -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On point 1 you did use the term vandalism when you undid my attempt to clarify the Shahba region is given to the name around the Manbij pocket under SDF control. Since this is a statement of fact not vandalism. I thought you already apologised for it, no need to keep dragging it back up.

Sir, I did not "use the term vandalism when you undid my attempt to clarify the Shahba region is given to the name around the Manbij pocket under SDF control". Please look it up in the article history. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand why you bring this up all the time, I find that there might be a misunderstanding. Let us start with what I wrote above:

BTW, the only two times time I used the term "vandalism" here was as reasoning for undoing two particular edits, one by an anonymous account that had changed the term "map" in a headline on the talk page to the term "mommy", and one by I do not know whom who had changed the sentence in the article on the SDF strategic perspective on the topic into an incomprehensible assembly of unrelated words.

Last night, the theater was described as "Shahba region in Aleppo governate". This morning, it was described as "Manbij Plains in Aleppo governate". As the latter clearly is too narrow, but at the other hand I saw that some editors appeared to fing the term "Shahba region" contentious, I changed it to "northern Aleppo governate". I did not at all use the term "vandalism" in this context, and this is the affair I perceived our discussion to be about.

However, I do increasingly get the impression that you talk about another edit of mine, namely the second one I mention in the quote above. Indeed I used the term "vandalism" in this context. Please look at that sentence as of last night, look at the same sentence as of this morning, compare as to what they communicate to the reader about their topic of the strategic perspective of the SDF towards the military issues at hand, and I think you will agree with me that the presentation of that perspective was simply destroyed for words without a coherent message. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On point 2, no idea what your talking about since I haven't edited the infobox at all. Once again, like i said before, through your own poor checking of facts, your throwing accusations around and creating a bad atmosphere. It all stems from you. The fact you're even calling it a "promotional label" demonstrates you have a POV your trying to push here. Take a break, your incessant urge to control this article is causing you to make serious mistakes. I've been patient and tried to be polite with you but this is ridiculous. You've gotten to the point where you are arguing with everybody and don't know who did what. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I just had to correct one edit that sought to present the SDF as "Kurdish" without attributing the claim to an opponent in brackets, and that mis-presentation definitely was an edit made by you. You actually even just undid my correction. So if you wish to uphold the "integrity of the source", then please put such claims in brackets. The presentation right now is suggesting that the Wikipedia article endorses that POV claim of the source.

Calling "Free Syran Army" a "promotional label" is not a POV of mine, but broad consensus in international media outside of Turkey, it is the essence of their Wikipedia article Free Syrian Army, and it has been the consensus on this very talk page here. Please read the discussions above.

As to your accusation, I do not "try to control the article". I barely have time to follow edits, I can only focus on one task, checking that everything that is presented with respect to the terms "Syrian Democratic Forces" on the one hand and "Free Syrian Army" on the other hand is factually correct -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuously without discussion messing with other peoples edits, accusing them of vandalism, propaganda for stating out the goals and aims of the Turkish incursion, and making false accusations of edits you can't provide links too and arguing with every editor you disagree with? That's pretty controlling behaviour by any standard. We agreed in the talk pages to discuss any differences so we can be more constructive then right away you change one of my edits. I'll assume your either tired or in over your head right now and these are just honest mistakes. But I fear this is going to end up needing mediation. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I did not "accuse" any editor of vandalism, there were two edits who were vandalism in substance in my humble opinion, and I used the term when correcting, without naming anyone. Can we now put this to rest? And on your other point, "arguing with editors" is not "controlling behaviour", it is the purpose of the talk page.

And I am trying to argue with you about an edit of yours, where you call the SDF "Kurdish YPG led". You defended that edit by pointing to an "integrity of the source". However, presenting POV claims based on integrity of the source should be in brackets, as not to give the impression of endorsement by the article. Would you put that in brackets? Do you see arguments not to do it? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think stating the YPG is a Kurdish force or the SDF is led by the YPG is controversial. Its described as such in the source, in all major news services and by experts in the conflict too.

Here the Guardian describe it as "the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)". Aljazeera uses "The Kurdish YPG militia", the BBC describe them here as "the Kurdish YPG militia". Whilst it doesn't need to be stated every time the YPG is mentioned it shouldn't be hidden to the reader either. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Black Goat Nomad, the question if the SDF would be "Kurdish YPG led" is the most contentious issue of all. It is the one issue that motivated and motivates all the stuff this article is about. Of course we can have an explicit discussion about that topic he article as well. But you cannot just write your POV on this topic (whatever media might share it) into the article as if it were not contentious. Please quote your source in brackets. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I will not get involved in this discussion about neutrality since I also made my opinion clear about ZA1ZA on how he/she blames anyone who challenges his/her opinion in any way as varying as "Islamist, jihadi, vandal, POV, biased", however himself/herself acts biased and doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with what he/she is doing on the article.

For the Shahba region issue, it may be a historical term, however its not at all an accepted neutral geographical term as Cizre/Al-Jazira region. So in this case, its safer to use the more neutral and accepted/common name, which is; (northern) Aleppo (Governorate). Since you care intensely about NPOV structure, I recommend you to listen to many people who voice their disaccord and abstention on using the POV-term "Shahba region". Berkaysnklf (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Last night, the theater was described as "Shahba region in Aleppo governate". This morning, it was described as "Manbij Plains in Aleppo governate". As the latter clearly is too narrow, but at the other hand I saw that some editors appeared to fing the term "Shahba region" contentious, I changed it to "northern Aleppo governate". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue with using the term Shahbah for northern Aleppo is that it has a political meaning in this context. It's the aim of only the SDF led forces to establish an administrative district called Shahba Canton here. It is de facto only in the Manbij pocket controlled by the SDF. So to use this political name for the entire region would be POV since it's a political aim for only one side. Northern Aleppo is just fine. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why all of you keep fighting. I agree only northern Aleppo should be used though. The region's name isn't Manbij pocket or Shahba. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Google search the name of 2A1ZA, he is literally on all kind of forums pushing for a certain narrative, also on forums such as reddit, he got banned on several subs, such as the syrian civil war. In my opinion 2A1ZA should not be allowed to edit or add anything on this article. Just google his name on this talk as well. Several users protesting his neutrality. Also note that he would stop editing the article when YPG and FSA ceased their clashes. Bradley258 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham

Ahrar al-Sham has issued statement today that it cooperates with Turkey in intervention. This is a group which works with affiliate of al-Qaeda(Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), uses suicide bombers and has committed atrocities on civilians. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No they did not, they issued a statement (fatwa) that its okey to work with the TAF against ISIL. The demonization does not work, they have not been designated as a terror group by the US while the PKK is.Bradley258 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham is already listed in the groups. What does war crimes and stuff have to do with this? Editor abcdef (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Demonization Bradley258 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

English names of the groups

I translated Arabic names into English for example: Jaish Tahrir into Liberation Army, Liwa Tahrir into Liberation Brigade, Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki into Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, etc.. I want see the opinions of some of you. Is this better? Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Better, in my opinion. Berkaysnklf (talk), 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the names can be even further translated. For example Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki could be translated as the Light of the Religion Movement. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that movement has a special name; it has a meaning of what you mentioned and at the same time is an open reference to the Seljuk Turkmen ruler of the region, Nur ad-Din, atabeg of Aleppo (Nurettin Zengi, in Turkish) Berkaysnklf (talk), 09:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Nour al-Din Zenki is a ethnic Turkoman commander who fought against the crusaders. It's just a name. Beshogur (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Syrian Opposition" instead "Free Syrian Army labeled Syrian rebels"

I think this would better. Because all of these FSA groups are under the "Syrian opposition" umbrella. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We should stop using Turkey-backed rebels as the US is also now supporting them with US special forces, Himars units and US airstrikes. Not to mention that the US is training these rebels. I suggest using Free Syrian Army and other Syrian rebels (those who do not associate them with FSA) in the info box and use Syrian Opposition in the main text. Bradley258 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The term "Syrian opposition" is generally used in a political context, not a military context. I think the term "Syrian rebel groups" is just fine. "Turkey-backed" make sense where it is relevant, which in my view is most of this article, because much of the aim of the whole operation as well as quite some combat of them is directed against "Turkey-opposed Syrian rebels" aka Syrian Democratic Forces. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What might make sense in my opinion would be to use the term "National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces" for the belligerent. I would like this idea because this is a somewhat discernible organizational structure. However, I am not so sure if that would be a proper description of the facts on the ground, as some of the groups which Turkey has assembled for this operation as to my knowledge reject the SNC (and the "Syrian opposition" as a whole as well). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, according your mentality, we can use "Syrian Democratic Forces labeled groups"? Beshogur (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said in a discussion above, I would really appreciate to have a discussion about naming that third column belligerent. In my humble opinion, "Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava" would be more accurate and better than "Syrian Democraric Forces". And of course also the organizational coherence of either could be discussed here on the talk page (while I think in both cases it is more than strong enough to present them as an organization and belligerent in its own right, not just a label for actual belligerents). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bradley and Beshogur. Using Free Syrian Army would be the best fitting action to the situation. Berkaysnklf (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It is fine that the three representatives of the Turkish government perspective on the topic are in agreement. However, in spite of the respective Turkish media narrative and terminology, "Free Syrian Army" clearly would be the worst possible solution, as it would mis-present a (well sounding and promotional) label for a coherent organizational structure, which it is not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Such NPOV approach towards 3 users. 2A1ZA perfectly fits the definition of Wikipedia:Disruptive user. I suggest you to reconsider the language you are using towards others. Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to scroll up this talk page and re-read the huge number of insults you guys have thrown around against other editors, not least against me. My language will always be polite, just as my focus is always on a good, NPOV article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

For these persistent reverts to "Syrian opposition", would someone please try to make a consistent substantial argument for the case that what is described in the Wikipedia article "Syrian opposition" should be named as a belligerent there? Prima facie, what is described there is a rather amorphous web, and of the institutions mentioned there, this article mentions most of them not at all and one with a lukewarm statement, and there is no discernable reason to assume that they have any control over the "units" which would thus be attributed to them. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The SNC, the institution most associated with the term "Syrian opposition", is quoted on the reactions section with a source reference that says: "The Coalition reaffirmed full support for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in its operation to liberate the town of Jarablos from the ISIS terrorist organization." Does this sound like they consider themselves a belligerent? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Levant Front"

Dear Editor abcdef, I find no hint anywhere that a group called "Levant Front" would be part of the "Free Idlib Army" umbrella. The Wikipedia articles in Levant Front and Free Idlib Army clearly say no. Do you have a source for that information? If not, would you revert your revert of my edits? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not, most likely a mistake. Nour al-Din al-Zenki isn't part of the Levant Front since December 2014 either. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talking about Nour al-Din al-Zenki, I just read that they had joined Jaysh al-Fatah (Army of Conquest) today. Might be worth mentioning in the infobox. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Army of Conquest doesn't seem to operate near the Turkish border as Ahrar al-Sham is part of this operation yet it haven't used the Conquest logo in its media. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebel territory seems too large

The rebel territory is too large than I've seen in any source. A recent example is IHS Jane's (which specialises in such topics and is highly regarded) map on BBC. The territory is far too small and on several front is just a very small strip along the border. Here's the link [1]. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you know anything about "scale"? Can't you imagine the area will be different if you show it on a map which extends from Mare to Euphrates, then on a map which shows Syria, Lebanon and Iraq altogether, and then on a map which shows all the Arabic speaking countries? Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Turkey-backed rebels" vs. "Turkish-backed rebels"

The article is somewhat inconsistent in language with respect to "Turkey-backed rebels" vs. "Turkish-backed rebels". I think that the use of language should be uniform. My preference would be the former, because it is more neutral and clearly refers to the country of Turkey, whereas the latter can refer to both, Turkey the country and Turkish the ethnicity, and thus leaves room for unwanted insinuations. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey-backed rebels is not proper grammar. When referring to any group backed by a country in the form of "X-backed group", only adjective is used to refer to that country. I've never seen any article except this one where name of a country is used instead of adjective to refer to that country. You'll never see America-backed or Russia-backed, only American-backed or Russian-backed. Besides the claim Turkish can be inferred to refer to refer to ethnicity doesn't seem really true. But Turkey-backed isn't proper English. Newsboy39 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you look it up on Google news, top-class media appear to use "Turkey-backed rebels" and "Turkish-backed rebels" to an about equal degree (for example Reuters mixes both). Lower-class media appear to prefer "Turkish-backed rebels", which is somewhat more illustrative and catchy. However, I disagree with your claim that "Turkey-backed" would not be proper English, it denotes something backed by the State of Turkey, and it is inter alia used by The New York Times, by The Washington Post, by Newsweek, by The Independent, by Bloomberg News, by CNN. To be honest, I rather have doubt if "Turkish-backed" is proper English. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia shouldn't use something simply because the media also uses it, even they can make minor mistakes in grammar and spellings. I say this because I have seen many news organisations make them and in the modern era where they try to deliver/publish news quickly after they receive it, there's a much high possibility as sometimes they don't have the time to check every minor mistake. Turkish-backed rebels is the proper grammar, we can't use something else simply because a news organisation used it. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also out of curiosity, I would love to have this point clarified by an expert, because I have the opposite instinct on correct grammar in this issue. Would you mind if I ask for comment from a linguist? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC about "Turkey backed" or "Turkish backed"

Which one is the proper English term, "Turkey-backed rebels", or "Turkish-backed rebels", or both? If both are proper English, which one should better be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A1ZA (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am in favour of Turkish backed as that seems to be more in use.Bradley258 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's clear from a Google News search that both "Turkey-backed" and "Turkish-backed" are grammatical and widely used. I don't think it matters which one we use, but if we need to pick one, "Turkish-backed" seems to be more common, as Bradley258 pointed out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• They actually have different meanings. In a hyphenated compound modifier, the words are an adjective preceded by modifying adverbs. Where an adjective is a participle, it is modified by the agent of the verb from which the participle is formed. "Backed" is a past participle, i.e. an adjective formed from the past tense of the verb "back". The agent is either Turkey, in which case it has to be "Turkey-backed", or the Turkish people, who can be called "the Turkish", in which case it is "Turkish-backed". Consider something made by a slave: it's "slave-made", not "enslaved-made". But if the item is made by Chinese people and not the Chinese state, it would be "Chinese-made", not "China-made".

As the article apparently wants to say that this backing is by the state, I would use "Turkey-backed" to make that clear. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. While both would be accurate, I support using "Turkish-backed rebels" as it is sounds more grammatically correct. Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Turkey-backed rebels My argument is the same as Giraffedata above. "Turkey-backed" makes it clear that it is backed by the country instead of the Turkish people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Organization

Since none of these things are relevant to the al-Bab offensive or any other active military operation in general, please place information about the YPG moving east of the Euphrates, the flags at Tel Abyad, towns "belonging" to Arabs, and other stuff about the PYD in general to the new section I created about the SDF.

Also civil and non-military information about Jarabulus shouldn't be placed in the offensives section, putting them in the Jarabulus article would be the best choice. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Northern al-Bab offensive (2016) - Continue, renewed, merge or create another article?

The next objective rebels have stated is Al-Bab. While this article might have been closed because of the focus on Dabiq, Dabiq was an objective for long even during the offensive. Dabiq might be considered an sub-objective or an optional-objective. Based on all of this I have four suggestions: Continue it showing that the offensive never ended and classify Dabiq offensive as its part. Renewed offensive, with the offensive restarting after Dabiq's capture. Merge both Dabiq and Al-Bab offensive. Or should we create another article for a new northern al-Bab offensive? The advance towards al-Bab hasn't begun yet, this is for what happens when it does. Ofcourse add your own advice as well. I think we should go per consensus. 117.220.16.205 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody talks. Why am I not surprised. Expected this. There's a really low level of cooperation here. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkey hitting terrorist PYD/YPG positions

Some info is missing from the article, especially regarding the recent bombing of PYD/YPG positions trying to advance towards al-Bab. -78.171.192.197 (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The main article is the western al-Bab offensive (October 2016), we can't just list every bombings in this long page. Also please try to be neutral here, this is a free encyclopedia, not a forum. Thanks. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned about the recent Turkish-FSA offensive against YPG in short and will update remarkable changes. And in this vein, I suggest we change the western al-Bab offensive into Tal Rifat offensive, or use both names, since the main push is towards Sheiykh Isa and Tel Rifat. Berkaysnklf (talk), 22 October 2016, 11:34 (UTC)

We can't say that for sure since the rebels are only attempting to capture towns like Herbel and Maarat Umm Hawsh as of now, and both sides are still attempting to advance east towards al-Bab. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone keeps messing up the format in the Infobox

Some unregistered editor keeps on messing up the format inthe infobox without any reason. And they give no reason on why it. The status section has bullet points, and apostrophes (*) need to start in a separate line to remain in proper format. If they don't then the entire things appear like a large continuous sentence. The bullet points are there to make the reading easier and list notable results. This editor has done this many times. Most recently he was reverted by User:Beshogur, but he came back and made the edit again. I think this person needs to be handed a IP range block. 117.199.83.117 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is becoming too long

This article is becoming too long we need to shorten it. we have different pages for Northern al-Bab offensive (2016), 2016 Dabiq offensive and Western al-Bab offensive (October 2016) while a brief summary is left in this article, the only offensive described in details is Jarabulus Offensive (2016), we need to split it from this page and create a new article to talk about the offensive that led to the capture of Jarabulus District and the villages north of Sajur River from ISIS and SDF. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you Rogal Dorm (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've seen several long articles, this one doesn't compare to some of them. But we should remove any unnecessary info covered in separate articles. Regarding a Jarabulus offensive, Jarabulus was captured in only a day if I remember correctly that too without any real resistance. Doesn't really warrant its own offensive. The battles after that but before Northern al-Bab offensive were focused on connecting Jarabulus to Azaz and elimination of ISIL control from the Turkish-Syruan border. There's no need for further splits.117.199.83.117 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said Jarabulus Offensive (2016) should include the offensive that led to the capture of Jarabulus District and the villages north of Sajur River from ISIS and SDF not only the battle for the city itself, this offensive took 8 days. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to first of all delete statement-chatter and lengthy quotes of Erdogan and other Turkish government figures from the article. These are all the same, contribute nothing and deleting them would shorten the article by 20 to 30 percent. No comparable article spams anything like this much chatter. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing the name

We must change the name into "Operation Euphrates Shield", because Jarabulus was a part of the offensive. So, I saw some things on internet, that rebel commanders want take Manbij and al-Bab. The name Jarabulus offensive is useless. We can make a new article about Battle of Jarabulus (2016) maybe? Beshogur (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The plan for the Manbij offensive was also to take al-Bab and Jarabulus, but it remains the Manbij offensive because Manbij was their main goal and it's the most common name for the operation. Same with the Jarabulus offensive. It's the most common name and Jarabulus is the main goal of the offensive. Code names shouldn't be used unless they're more very prominent. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No official has ever said "Jarablus is the main goal". As I've said above, the name should change to Operation Euphrates Shield or to some better explaining title like Northern Aleppo Offensive. User:Berkaysnklf (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedi is not a publisher of original thought. We should not publish our personal inventions. The operation have an official name which accepted by sputnik, aljazeera, the guardian etc. Only YPG forces call it "offensive". You may change the name as Jarablus operation, if you would like to prefer a neutral name. AlexandreManette (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Euphrates Shield" is the name given by one faction in the war, Wikipedia should use a neutral name like "Jarabulus offensive (2016)" (as existing), "Battle for Jarabulus (2016)" or something the like. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

According to some of the ridiculous arguments here, Operation Enduring Freedom or any other operation mentioned by name on Wikipedia need to be changed to whatever name that pleases some users. What nonsense! -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The official given name by the main party in this conflict is "Operation Euphrates Shield". It is also the most acknowledged title given to this conflict. "Turkish military intervention in Syria" is too long and sounds more like a description that would follow the name like "Operation Euphrates Shield was a Turkish military intervention in Syria" Berkantagan (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Armed forces casualties

The number of wounded is not right as many of the killed were first mentioned as wounded and later died from their wounds (wich is clearly stated as well). Also only human live losses (in this case soldiers/fighters) should be mentioned as it is done by the others as well (see rebels, ISIS and SDF). Beside this it would be impossible to know/find out what the material losses of the SDF, ISIS AND THE REBELS ARE (PICK UP TRUCKS, BMP'S, light armored trucks and even some tanks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C04:2902:2400:A4AA:7D31:DD27:18C2 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a clear consensus here to keep the present page name, as well as a trend to rename pages in the opposite direction. The other name suggested, "Operation Euphrates Shield", is noted; however, that name was unsupported by other editors. (non-admin closure)  Paine  ^u/c 20:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Turkish military intervention in Syria → Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War – It seems the previous move discussion was very much insufficient to make such a move (1 ip user proposing with 1 editor supporting and 1 opposing), especially considering that "intervention in Syria" is an exceptional and vague suffix, making Turkish role on border areas like incident with Russian airforce to be excluded from scope. Furthermore, the definition of Syria is now becoming slightly blurred with Syrian opposition claiming to be the genuine Syria and same with North Syria Federation, rather than Assad's Syrian Arab Republic (which currently redirects to Syria), so "intervention in Syria" suggests only intervention in Assad's controlled areas? Finally most other articles of this nature describe involvement or intervention in the Syrian Civil War: Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Dutch involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Saudi Arabian support to Syrian Opposition in the Syrian Civil War, Qatari support to Syrian Opposition in the Syrian Civil War and of course Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War (the only exception is American-led intervention in Syria) GreyShark (dibra) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be moved there. It should be moved to Operation Euphrates Shield. --92slim (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think, it's fine this way. Berkaysnklf (talk), 17 October 2016, 18:39 (UTC)

Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War was moved to Russian military intervention in Syria. — Andy W. (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Important discussion about PKK held areas in Syria

The YPG supporters have been able to portray its entities as legitimate historical regions and Wikipedia has turned into a playground of zealot pro-PKK activists. Hence, it is important to bring some sense back. I kindly ask all interested parties to participate in this discussion here.

Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is a sinister ploy. For all we know 2A1ZA (talk) might be an agent. -78.171.190.249 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Attar-Aram syria. 2A1ZA has a personal mission of POV distortion of facts. He alone shaped articles related to region as he pleased them to be. This guy has to be stopped before he deletes every information he doesn't like and stipulates his Kurdish perfectionist utopia on anyone who does not agree. Berkaysnklf (takl) 2 November 2016, 19:37 (UTC)

Sure, so you guys calling the YPG PKK is absolutely in no way POV. Sorry but that's ridiculous, especially if you keep in mind that this article uses a ethnic map claiming that the Turkmens make up half of the population of Azaz, the majority of Jarabulus and all of Soran.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to be concerned with the facts on the ground. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, both sides involved in this dispute (mainly 2A1ZA and Attar-Aram) are trying to push their own POV. While 2A1ZA trys to give Rojava legitimacy (They're not recognized by the central government and just because they have committed less atrocities than the other factions doesn't make them the "Saviors of Syria"...), Attar-Aram seems to "demonize" Rojava simply because it isn't fully legal (The sole existance of Rojava is a de facto situation though), by ocassionally calling the YPG "Terrorists" (Very "NPOV"... Turkey is the only country to designate them as terrorists and we all know how paranoid Erdogan is towards the Kurds...) or claiming that: YPG = PKK. (Which is basically POV, too. Turkey is as always the only one to claim it.) Having editors with a certain POV working on topics directly related to their POV is really dangerous, EVEN if they claim to treat it neutral. (It's impossible to completely treat something neutral, if you favor a certain POV on it.)79.246.24.157 (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

But I dont edit the article, look at it, my contribution is minimal and only to stop that user presisting shameless behavior and that is the difference. I admit im not neutral but i dont add POV material and if you can give any example of me adding such material, please do.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear 79.246.24.157 (talk), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation recognized the YPG as a terror organisation in its last meeting in Istanbul. This means 57 states recognise it as a terror group. Even if Turkey were the only country to recognise the PKK and YPG as terror groups, this is only a blatant shame on the international community and it shows how incompetent the UN has become. By recognising other extremists such as Daesh as terrorists while turning a blind eye on nationalist terrorists, who continue to kill innocent civilians in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey is being hypocrtical. It is not a matter of POV. Have the courage to call them for what they are: terrorists. Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, in the end it's still an opinion. ISIL is called "Terrorist", because MANY people see them like that. PKK on the other hand is quite controversial, because some, especially Turkey, call them Terrorist, while others see them as some kind of freedom fighters. In the end it's all POV. 79.246.31.13 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. No group should be called terrorists on Wikipedia articles other than the articles for the respective group. Even ISIL should not be labelled as terrorists in this article, only in its own article which is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And please, Wikipedia is not the place for political debates on whether the UN should recognize the PKK as terrorists or whatever. These things are not improving the article at all. We're not calling any group terrorists here, so debating whether ISIL or the PKK are terrorists here are completely pointless. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Where should the serious allegations of Turkish ethnic cleansing against Kurds be placed?

Serious allegations of systematic Turkish ethnic cleansing against Kurdish population in rebel-occupied areas have been brought from many sources over the past weeks, however now they are even prominently on record by Salih Muslim via Reuters. Where in the article should that be placed? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No such thing happened nor will it happen. How about you take your views to a discussion page? This is not a forum. -85.109.220.31 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This guy is a funny fella. He deletes the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports of ethnic cleansing by PYD from Rojava page but comes and voices his rage here because what Salih Muslim (president of so-called unrecognized Rojava Federation) had said is not in the page. Berkaysnklf (takl) 2 November 2016, 19:33 (UTC)

Talk about POV pushing! -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, dear Berkaysnklf, some minor corrections: (1) There exists no report of AI or HRW (or of any other reputable source) concerning anything Rojava that contains the term "ethnic cleansing". (2) I feel no rage about anything, and in particular not about this sentence not being in this article here, I could have simply placed it there. (3) Salih Muslim holds no office whatsoever in the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava, he is co-chairman of the strongest party. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Hi, ARA News and ANHA are unreliable sources since they openly propogate a pro-PYD/YPG stance. I recommend removing all references to these propaganda outlets and the sentences associated with them. Awaiting a consensus on the matter. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to treat those 2 sources as unreliable, then "Daily Sabah" should be removed as well, since it is Erdogans personal Propaganda outlet.79.246.21.177 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. See the Daily Sabah. You could add your words to the Criticism section. In any event, please stick to the subject at hand. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So it's fine to remove only Pro-PYD sources, but not the Pro-Turkey ones? such NPOV... 79.246.29.7 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody else claims it to be pro-Turkey. The Daily Sabah is a professional paper under a legitimate government. What can PYD sponsored propaganda outlets claim? I believe we know the answer. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

All news reports coming from Turkey through Turkey-based media outlets should be treated with great caution, as they are almost everytime heavily biased towards a Pro-Turkey Stance. Erdogan doesn't allow neutral reports, especially not about the kurds. I hope you have atleast heard about all the media outlets that have closed down in Turkey, just because they were trying to be neutral.

By the way, where do you see this "openly Pro-PYD/YPG" stance with ARA and ANHA...? They both only report on things that happen in Rojava. Maybe because of that?79.246.16.89 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That's like saying The New York Times is pro-US. It doesn't make sense. Pro-PKK media outlets are being shutdown within the rule of law and the state of emergency declared for a three-month period to combat terrorism. The rest are baseless accusations. The time will come to shut down pro-PYD/YPG terrorism-supporting media. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not adhere to Turkish law so it's completely irrelevant. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. My research on ARA News suggests it can be used as a source. But what about ANHA? ANHA propagates terrorism. It is inappropriate to be used as a reference. Awaiting consensus. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Balance discussion in "Human rights in Rojava"

Dear editors interested in the topic, there is a ongoing discussion on balance and deletion of content in the Human rights in Rojava article. It would be appreciated if some of you would be willing to contribute to solving issues, concerning deletions of material in the article as well as not least in the talk page discussion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Turkish shelling Manbij area

How about including some information about recent Turkish shelling in Manbij area? It's been included Turkish intention to arrest (I'd even say kidnap) Salih Muslim but no information about everything happening in Manbij outskirts... http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/11/turkey-arrest-pyd-pkk-leaders.html I cannot do that since my English is not good enough to write it down. Lucas.espanol (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality template

How long will the neutrality template stay? Isn't it time we agree to delete it? Just a reminder. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we even know which part remains "non-neutral"? There were countless discussions during the last few months, with most of them involving our infamous NPOV-Editor, but they appear to be resolved (kind of). Should be okay to remove it, but knowing our infamous NPOV-Editor, it will be put back very soon anyway...79.246.23.53 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I will wait for a week to see what others have to say. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be renoved if the NPOV-Editor not comes back. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I just went through the article, it appears that most of the issues which caused the POV template (in particular the issue of mis-presentation of "Free Syrian Army" as an alleged coherent organization) keep being solved. I clearly see at least one remaining POV problem with the article, namely extended elaborations and quotes of the Turkish perspective/narrative on topics, which are not fairly balanced by narratives of other parties, in particular Rojava/SDF. My consensus suggestion would be to live with that in the article in general as it is, but the section "Statements about further Turkish military action against the Syrian Democratic Forces" is either deleted or renamed and expanded to present other perspectives/narratives than the Turkish one as well. Flag could then be removed in my view. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you are too late in providing your views. Secondly, there is no POV problem with the mentioned topics as the more info is provided the better it is for the article in general. Feel free to add your perspective on the matter and enrich the article to reflect those of the SDF separatist, terrorist group. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "too late" in addressing issues with a Wikipedia article. Just went through the section concerned and realized that the Syrian government perspective is not even mentioned there, neither the Russian perspective. And as I said, the SDF perspective is much under-represented. I will happily participate in solving the issues, once there is consensus which concrete path (deletion of section, renaming and sub-sections for different parties) the solution shall take. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Soldier casualties

The soldier that was killed near al bab is the same one. The military even released their ID's Hakan3400 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources confirming four soldiers died in the air-strike with one dying of his wounds later on in addition to the fifth soldier who died in an ISIL attack. EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Turkish military released only 4 dead soldier on their site. Witch I added as source. Please inform yourself better next time Hakan3400 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I added already so many sources and tried to explain it yet tou don't listen. The casualties were confusing cuz it was reported first as attack kills another soldier. While it was an soldier who died from his wounds sustained from an ISIS attack,not an seperate one. And if you don't believe me, go to the page of the killed soldier on the Turkish armed forces, withc released yesterday the 3 killed and today 1 killed witch are the total deaths of 4 soldiers Hakan3400 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

We write per the sources and per the sources they say four soldiers died in the air-strike (3 immediately and one dying of his wounds later on) in addition to the fifth soldier who died in an ISIL attack. Sources even say five soldiers died in Syria in two days. Also, I am obligated to warn you you just violated the 1RR (see WP:1RR) rule that applies to all Syria- or ISIL-related articles. Under the policy, you can not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. You made 2 [2][3]. I would please ask you to cancel your last revert and discuss the issue or you can get blocked for the violation. EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you can understan me at all. I added the Turkish military's site as an source withc has the identities of the soldier, withc makes it much more reliable. And for syria it released only 4 death soldiers, witch you can see on the site witch I added as an source. Please read it better

Hakan3400 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So now you are warning me because I'm adding more reliable sources? Hakan3400 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm warning you because I am obligated to if you violate WP policy. And again, your sources do not contradict the other ones which confirm five deaths (4 from air-strike and 1 from ISIL) in 2 days [4][5]. Your sources only confirm that Turkey identified 4 of the soldiers, but other sources confirm overall 5 soldiers died. That Turkey hasn't identified the 5th soldier yet is their thing. So again, I please ask that you continue discussing the issue and cancel your last revert. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And as last, thats just what I try to explain to you and others. The reported soldier who died from his wounds sustained from the alleged airstrike and the on who died from his wounds by an ISIS attack is the same soldier. The report came midnight in Turkey by witch not al news channels had reported on it yet. And it was first reported as an attack near al bab, not that it was an soldier who died by/from an airstrike. The next day howeever the military said that the soldier died from an ISIS attack. And thus now some are thinkig that two soldier were kileld whole in fact its one. And once again, thats why I added as source the page of the Turkish miliatry witch had the Id's of the killed soldiers Hakan3400 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The current Turkish soldier casualties are all the ones that were identified, so yes it does matter. And I added the the TSK page as source Hakan3400 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That Turkey identified only 4 soldiers doesn't mean only 4 died. Multiple sources confirmed 5 died. Your sources only confirm that Turkey identified 4 of those 5. So again, please cancel your edit and take into consideration multiple sources are confirming 5 died (3 in air-strike, 1 from wounds from air-strike, 1 in ISIL attack). EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If Turkey said 4, it's 4. Tried to hack enough? Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

How is that an confirmation? I added sources witch says otherwise yet you seem to try and get away with you fault. If there is no ID of the soldier how can you be sure from a news outlet that it was 5 and not 4? I will report you as well because you are trying to add all sources that are right in your ameyes and ignore the sources I added and barerly discuss it. You say now the whole time the same thing while I gave you an clear answer and source Hakan3400 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe off topic, but Wikipedia has realy become worse in the last few years. People are getting ignored/blocked becuase they add sources of with other don't agree with and many times they don't even disscus it Hakan3400 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And as Beshoger said, if Turkey/Turkish military says 4 then its 4. If you don't agree then ad a new section with other claims (like 10 killed, syrian claim, etc..) Hakan3400 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And why are you lying now? I didn't just remove his edit. I explained the edit very well by adding an reliable source from the Turkish military Hakan3400 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Turkey said 5 [6][7], but so far identified only 4. That they identified only 4 so far does not negate the fact they confirmed 5. EkoGraf (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Read sources again please. 3 due to air attack, one injured soldier died in hospital and a 5th soldier died in an ISIL attack. Thus 5. And sources I linked you clearly say 5. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Turkey said 3 soldiers were killed due to air attack. And day after, one of the injured soldiers is also killed in hospital. Thus 4. Beshogur (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hakan3400: How have I barely discussed the issue when I have been talking to you for the last 55 minutes? And I think I have been pretty much clear myself and with the sources I provided. It is not up to us to say a news outlet is wrong based on our own personal opinions. Its considered a violation of WP policy on Original Research. The current sources that we have clearly say 5 soldiers died, with Turkey so far identifying 4 of the 5. The problem here is you are mixing up the confirmed overall number with the identified by name number. PS Accusing a fellow editor of lying is also a violation of WP policy on civility. I didn't say you removed his edit, I said you canceled his update from 17 to 18. EkoGraf (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second, why aren't you waiting then till Turkey identifies the 5th soldier? Are you afraid of that? Take some time then an wait till the military identifies that 5th killed soldier (with is not true). I respect your cause here, but it is getting a bit stupid now. The causalties we been adding now are Turkish claims so why not wait till it gets confirmed? Hakan3400 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And where does the Turkish military confrim that it definitly was 5 killed? Hakan3400 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Put it here for the last time, the most reliable source in this case is the statement from the turkish military Hakan3400 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hakan3400: In the sources I linked you and will link for you again. [8][9] 1st quote - Turkish soldier killed in clashes with IS in northern Syria. Death comes one day after four Turkish troops killed in what Turkish army said was an air strike by Syrian government forces. 2nd quote - This brought Turkish casualties in northern Syria in the past two days to five, in addition to 25 wounded. PS Again, calling an actions of an editor stupid or that he is afraid is again violation of WP: Civility. I am conducting edits based on sources (which say 5 in 48 hours). EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hakan3400, dikkat edersen 4 hava saldırısında oldu, sonuncusu ise sonradan gelen IŞİD saldırısı yüzünden oldu, yani 5 askerimiz şehit. Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Olayi karisiriyorsun, sehit olan askerler aynisi.

I said the situation we are in now is stypid, sorry if I offended you. The news sources you send me again is the same thing you said before. I say, lets wait on the Turkish military and if it doesn't identifie, well then tuere is no 5th soldier death in that case Hakan3400 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As said before, lets wait and see what the military says then. If it doesn't release any ID no death then Hakan3400 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's not up to you or me to decide, whether a death happened or not. We write what the sources say. Turkey confirmed 5 deaths happened, of which they identified 4. We list total confirmed deaths, not identified ones. EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PS Three more sources confirming 5 deaths [10][11][12]. That makes 6 sources total. Also, two of the three confirming total number of Turkish military killed in Syria at 18. EkoGraf (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Turkey didn't confirm that, news sites did, two different things. The military has so for given 4 deaths and thats the only fact in that manner. You on the other hand keep adding the thing I explained a while ago.

Al masdar news for exampla gave today as a total of 17 death despite being a pro govt news source. Its not about the Turkish origin but about what the military says about their loss of soldiers. For example, you could give us a day time to see if the military does anounce the death of its 5th soldier. So far it did not. Adding more and more turkish sources witch have the same way of taking the news sources doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So if that news would say there are 30 deaths while the military doesn't confirm that, would you still add it on? Thats not how it works. I added the TSK/Turkish armed forces as source and is so far the most reliable one. Witch can't be denied ad you have no other military source (you used only sources from news sites witch don't have all the source from the military self directly). Hakan3400 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The military is in this case the Turkish source. If you wanna add other numbers then put it apart from the so far 17 confirm/identified deaths Hakan3400 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Masdar news is a pro-Syrian government source, which is biased against Turkey and thus not totally reliable when it comes to claims of casualties sustained by Turkey. In any case, per Wikipedia policy we are obligated to write based on what secondary (if available) reports say, not primary sources. The Turkish military itself is a primary source, while the media outlets are secondary. Read Wikipedia policy in this regard WP:PRIMARY. Writing exclusively according to what the Turkish military says is violation of WP:PRIMARY. EkoGraf (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I use the primary source to confirm my claim. In an other way, there is no secundary/news source that confirm for example the identity of the 5th soldier. So it all comes to the same point. Al masdar is indeed pro regime but I used that as an example . So far media has only confirmed 4 funerals for the killed soldiers, no 5th. I can keep saying al these things over and over again but it won't change much here. Hakan3400 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

See the AA source, only 4 funerals for the killed soldiers in syria Hakan3400 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I repeat again, primary sources are to be avoided per WP policy and only secondary sources are to be used for the most part if they are available. The secondary sources are the media outlets reporting five deaths (we have provided half a dozen sources for confirmation) which you are not acknowledging. All available secondary sources confirm five soldiers were killed, while the primary source (Turkish military itself) has identified only 4 so far. We are obligated to give more credit to the secondary sources. At this point its a simple case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on your part. Three editors are in consensus over the issue (Beshogur, Mr.User200 and me) while you are the only one who is continuing to argue it. EkoGraf (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I once again say, the primary source is an example because there is no single media outlet that cofirm the 5th soldiers death with its identity with does matter. I can add now for example the AA sources from the last casualties witch will show again that there is no 5tth soldier death. If I add another source, you will just show your old sources again because it show '5 killed. Hakan3400 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

With todays 1 soldier death both the Turkish military and media confirms the 18 th soldier death Hakan3400 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

And to say, first the media outlets report on the death and later the turkish military officialy anounce the death by witch some other media outlets report this again as well witch makes it look like as if 2 soldiers got killed Hakan3400 (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I added today an source that confirms my yesterdays claim. The total death toll has risen to 18 with todays 1 soldier killed. (The statement was first made by the media outlets self and later with official statement from the Turkish armed forces Hakan3400 (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

" "

always using "x" when Turkey says something is psychological point of view pushing, im starting the process of removing this and making the article more neutral Needbrains (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Verbal attack against living persons

The last paragraph under the subtitle Against the Syrian government regarding President Erodgan needs to be removed. Erdogan is a living person and the paragraph constitutes a personal verbal attack against a living person. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2016

To add the recent SDF casualties to 99+ as two more were reportedly killed near Manbij during clashes with Turkish military and FSA [13]. Also adding recent ISIS casualties from Turkish airstrikes, current casualties are 1,800 and are now/should be improved with the 25 killed [14], and 20 killed [15], to an total of 1,845 killed. 2001:1C04:2902:2400:79DB:EED:D516:A3F6 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We should exclude "2 burned Turkish soldiers" as a casualty

Because, one of the soldier was captured in 2015, the other one was allegedly a spy. So, they weren't captured during this operation. Beshogur (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus the video is an obvious fake. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't say it was fake, but those soldiers has nothing to do with ES. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Without reliable sources saying its a fake, declaring it as such would be Original Research on our part. Multiple reliable sources reported on the burning of the two soldiers that had already earlier been confirmed as captured during operation Euphrates Shield [16]. But, since their deaths have not officially been confirmed by Turkey, the appropriate course of action would be to present a lower and upper estimate of fatalities. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Area of operation

Does anyone have information as to the size of the area the Turkish military now operates/occupies inside Syria?Doyna Yar (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC) The defacto Turkish occupied area inside Syria looks like it is roughly twice the size of the Israeli occupied Golan. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the neutrality flag from the "Statements about further action" section?

As the editor who had put up the neutrality flag on the "Statements about further action" section, I think that due to updates one might now consider removing the flag, if one minor overhaul of the section is done which takes care that all Turkish accusations against others are clearly presented as POV accusations and not as facts (in some cases the language used still gives some misleading impressions). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is not a soapbox; the talk page is not a forum. There are lots of other places on the Internet to talk about this stuff.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How about you consider addressing illegal activities of PYD/YPG, sorry newly named SDF, in Syrian Kurdish territories of supposed Rojava? Human like you (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa

Turkey has made statements about intention to expel ISIL from Raqqa with the help of coalition instead. If someone can find all the statements they've made, it would be very helpful. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Intervention

Why are editors writing that the intervention is over. it isnt over a operation is over and a new one will start. just like how russia or the US has started and concluded many missions Turkey will also now start a new operation. So there is no need to say that the intervention ended and when a new operation starts a new article will be made. Needbrains (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is specifically about Operation Euphrates Shield. If another intervention starts then another section right here in this article or another article could be created and the title of this article can be changed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

there is also no indication that Turkish forces have been withdrawn. Even though the operation is over, the intervention continues.XavierGreen (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I also think the article was wrongly moved to "intervention in Syria", whereas it should be "intervention in the Syrian Civil War", same as Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 19:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MonsterHunter32. The subject of this article is Operation Euphrates Shield, which has ended. What is still ongoing is the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, for which we have a separate article. I think best course of action would be, so not to mix up these things, to rename this article to Operation Euphrates Shield. Besides, it was also one of the most common names for it while it was ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible change in title

Considering this article is specifically about the Turkish operation/intervention in the Aleppo region (known as Euphrates Shield) that has ended at this point and that now the Turkish military is preparing for a new operation/intervention in the Idlib region, I think we should possibly discuss renaming this article so to differentiate it from the new Turkish incursion. But of course, the rename would happen only when and if the new intervention in Idlib takes place. I am thinking, in such a case, this article should ether be renamed to Turkish military intervention in Syria (August 2016–March 2017) or Operation Euphrates Shield. I will ping editors heavily involved in Syrian civil war articles to voice their opinions. @Editor abcdef:@LightandDark2000:@MonsterHunter32:@Mr.User200:@Applodion: PS Sorry if I missed pinging someone. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally believe that this article should be changed to either Operation Euphrates Shield, Turkish military intervention in Syria (August 2016–March 2017) or Turkish military intervention in Aleppo Governorate and that the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War page be liked the parent page of both operations. --FPSTurkey (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with the first title (Operation Euphrates Shield), although I think most of the others prefer the current one. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the title should be changed to Operation Euphrates Shield as well Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This military operation did officially ended

Here is an article about it. (EtienneDolet) please revert your entry. It's your bias, the operation ended successfully and it's claimed to being victorious by Turkey. " the conflict is still ongoing so it's premature to call it a victory." is not true. This is a different article than Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Turkey considers a victory. The war is still ongoing. Any day now the Syrian army or Russian air force could kick out the Turkish occupation and restore Syria's territorial integrity. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the operation (aka Euphrates Shield). It's ended, and the conflict is not ongoing in Euphrates shield. So all articles about battle of Aleppo would be marked as "ongoing", can you say that "x will return to y place" to every conflict that happened? And you don't sound civil, this is wikipedia, not reddit. "Any day now the Syrian army or Russian air force could kick out the Turkish occupation and restore Syria's territorial integrity." is not a reason to mark the conflict as ongoing. Beshogur (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"The article is about the operation (aka Euphrates Shield)." - No, it's not. This is where you're fundamentally wrong. This article is about the Turkish intervention in Syria which lead to the occupation of Syria territory. It's not a question of victory or defeat, rather a result of a phase in the Syrian Civil War. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Beshogur is correct. This article is specifically about the 2016-17 Turkish intervention aka operation Euphrates Shield. If a new ground intervention is made by Turkey against Afrin in the coming days (which will most likely be under a new operational name) then we will need to create a new article. At that point this article would be renamed to Turkish military intervention in Syria (August 2016–March 2017), while the new one would be named Turkish military intervention in Syria (January 2018–present) since this would be their second ground invasion. EkoGraf (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there was a consensus reached several months ago (check section above) that the article should be re-titled to Operation Euphrates Shield or Turkish military intervention in Syria (August 2016–March 2017). Nobody simply followed up on the consensus with a move. So there would not be any miss-conceptions regarding what the specific subject of this article is I have renamed the article in accordance with the consensus. When the new ground operation starts, which the Turks say has de-facto already begun with the shelling, we will create a new article. Also, Beshogur is correct in that Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War is the general article for Turkey's involvement in Syria in any form, whether the first or second ground incursion, weapon shipments etc. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf Thanks for moving the page. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus to move to the new name. While not disregarding the mild opposition, the neutrality of the suggested title is disputed and no evidence of its usage in mainstream sources. (closed by page mover) –Ammarpad (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Turkish military intervention in Syria (August 2016 – March 2017) → Operation Euphrates Shield – All the news outlets I can think of (e.g. Reuters, DW, France 24, etc) have used it at least once in their reports. It's also shorter and I'm noticing support for it in the above threads. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support In fact up above it can be seen there was already support to change to Operation Euphrates Shield but due to a technical redirect I wasn't able to rename it to that. An administrator will be required. EkoGraf (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support The followers of the war at large use the name Operation Euphrates Shield, not to mention Turkish military intervention in Syria is now ambiguous as Operation Olive Branch has begun. Cepiolot (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral options would be Turkish invasion of Syria (2016) or Turkish offensive in Syria (August 2016-March 2017). The current title is inaccurate since the Turkish intervention continued after March 2017 in the form of an occupation, but no further territory was taken. Zekelayla (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nether of those is a common name for the event, and per WP policy articles are titled per the common names in reliable sources. Also, invasion isn't really a neutral term. What took place after March 2017 is already covered in the general article on Turkish involvement in the Syrian war. EkoGraf (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is commonly known by that name, so the change makes sense. Applodion (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (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.