Talk:Operation Olive Branch/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Atlantic

I have removed this [1] for several reasons: 1) it's sourced to an opinion piece, 2) it reads like a far fetched attempt at justifying the invasion, 3) the source is not quoted faithfully (for example, the article also says the following " Over the course of the conflict in Syria, the Turkish government turned a blind eye to jihadists, enabled al-Qaeda affiliates, and was (at best) ambivalent about fighting the Islamic State. Let us also stipulate that Turkey would likely be better off if it approached the grievances of many of its Kurdish citizens with an open hand rather than a clenched fist. It is also true that the rhetoric of Turkish leaders at rallies in support of Turkey’s incursion is blood curdling., 4) weasel-wording (use of passive voice, e.g. "support for Greek and Armenian territorial claims" - support by whom?). Furthermore the notion that Greece has territorial claims on Turkey is patent nonsense (rather, it's the other way around) and trying to justify the invasion of Afrin based on non-existent territorial claims by Greece and Armenia is far beyond the pale. Khirurg (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very POV edit and a very bad form of cherrypicking. I reverted the account who reverted your removal and provided them with a warning for WP:NPA. Dr. K. 07:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
But you did defend a source that stated that turkey just wanted to kill as many kurds as possible. You are clearly biased. The text gave a major reason why millions of Turkish people are against kurdish nationalism/expansionism, its not just an "opinion piece", but a real concern millions of turks have. "it reads like a far fetched attempt at justifying the invasion", Turkey doesnt need to justify its intervention to you. Turkey felt very threatened by the growing kurdish expansionism and decided to intervene. Needbrains (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I should note that I added this opinion piece because "Steven A. Cook is the Eni Enrico Mattei Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations" and he~ is a recognized expert on this topic, but I should have attributed the statement to him as it is an opinion piece. It may not be due for inclusion, I could look into that more if its inclusion is being disputed on those grounds - but being an opinion piece is not really a good reason to remove it since it is an expert opinion for this topic. Additionally I didn't leave out "Western support" - that was a typo on my part, if I remember the article correctly. There is nothing stopping Khiruig from adding more content from the article, which is a very high quality expert opinion, but I did not misrepresent the source — this is a borderline personal attack unless there is evidence to support it and a random, unrelated quote from the article is not evidence of misconduct on my part. But I am sorry about the typo, this should be fixed if the content is restored.Seraphim System (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Weren't you the same user that just a few hours ago rejected a source because it was "an opinion article"???? That's strange. I thought opinion articles shouldn't be allowed in this article. Ohhhhh, I see. One opinion article was against your POV, while the other one suits it. That's a rather clear and obvious case of WP:POVPUSHING and it should be well noted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Arent you the guy that tries to make this article sound something like this: "Oh no world do something! You cant just stand still while these evil Turks are killing the poor little gurds"? Needbrains (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Étienne Dolet Yes, I said an opinion article written by someone with no particular recognized expertise in the topic area should not be used in the article. I suggest you follow AGF and WP:NPA — asking for a policy justification is ok, (it is WP:RS - 3 definitions of a source ) — a personal attack and assumption of bad faith is not ok..Seraphim System (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
How did you get from rejecting a source by saying: "This source is an opinion article" to "an opinion article written by someone with no particular recognized expertise in the topic area should not be used in the article." Where and when did you ever say that? Please, show me the diff. I'm waiting. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This is also completely unrelated to the current discussion, and I won't be replying further. "According to Owen Jones, a columnist..." and "According to the Eni Enrico Mattei Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations..." are qualitatively different, I know I have not been editing as long as you have but my understanding of these policies like how to use opinion sources comes from discussions with other editors and I don't think this needs any kind of diff beyond being clearly stated in WP:NEWSORG Seraphim System (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You rejected the Guardian piece by saying: "This source is an opinion article". You did not talk about Owen Jones, nor did you argue or confront his expertise. You rejected it for the mere fact that it was an opinion piece. So again, please show me the diff where you debated Owen Jones' expertise on the topic. Please show me when and where you made the arguments that you're making so conveniently right now, only after, of course, you placed this opinion piece into the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Not only that, but any "expert" that makes the ludicrous claims that Greece and Armenia have territorial claims on Turkey is...not much of an expert. Khirurg (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Khirurg. I haven't even got to that yet. Greece and Armenia making territorial claims against Turkey? Ridiculous. If anything it's the other way around. I mean wow, there's so much wrong with that one edit Seraphim made and is now arguing for that it'll quite some time to unpack it. But one step at a time. Let's first unravel why one opinion source gets rejected outright for being nothing more or less than an opinion piece while the other is taken into consideration and inserted into the article without much hesitation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If anything it's the other way around. Please explain what you mean by this comment. Seraphim System (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't try to shift the burden of proof. What I said is pretty self-explanatory. But that would lead to a moot discussion because I'm not making an edit on an article that makes such a claim. On the other hand, you are. The WP:ONUS is on you justify how, when, and where the countries of Armenia and Greece have made territorial claims towards Turkey. You also need to explain why you have two definitions of 'opinion pieces'. Why is it that one opinion article get rejected outright, while the other is taken into consideration without hesitation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you please post a diff where I have tried to restore the content? I would like you to explain what you mean by Greece and Armenia making territorial claims against Turkey? Ridiculous. If anything it's the other way around. Seraphim System (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I support [this removal] and will myself revert if the material is reinstated. This article does not need to waste space for some rather imaginative, to say the least, rationalization for the Turkish side here. Opinion pieces can sometimes be useful especially in an "Analysis" section where different views can be placed side by side, but the sentence here was deep into the WP:FRINGE territory; no one sane thinks there is a serious threat to Turkey, the NATO member with the 2nd most powerful standing army, from fellow-NATO member Greece or tiny Armenia.--Calthinus (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has tried to restore this, but I do disagree with the characterization as fringe. The Council on Foreign Relations is not a FRINGE source, and we write articles based on what reliable sources say not editors unsourced analysis. Seraphim System (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say the source was fringe. I said the sentence that it cited was deep into fringe territory. I don't think I need to explain why the sentence is fringe and the source not so much, it has been done above. Also, good to hear nobody wants to readd it-- why is there still an argument then?--Calthinus (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think if it is restored, it should be attributed to Steve A. Cook who is WP:RS - he is not FRINGE — accusing editors of adding FRINGE ideas is sometime considered uncivil — it's not an accusation to throw around, it is a pretty serious accusation and should be supported by a serious argument. Arguably, it should not be made where it is not necessary, as I don't think it was in this discussion. Steven A. Cook, who is the source for this analysis, from his bio at CFR: "He is an expert on Arab and Turkish politics as well as U.S.-Middle East policy. Cook is the author of False Dawn: Protest, Democracy, and Violence in the New Middle East; The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square, which won the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's gold medal in 2012; and Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey." I think his opinion, as long as it is attributed, is fine as WP:RS - not a "waste of space" and of better quality than many of the sources that have been used for this article. Seraphim System (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System My apologies if it came off as if I was accusing you of having fringe views, I tend not to speculate on what other editors think as there is usually millions of possibilities why they may add a particular thing. However, I stand by my assessment that the way the sentence was worded (this is not sufficiently representative the same as what the source said, Khirurg was correct in his analysis of that) would be interpreted by most readers as expressing a view that is, yes, fringe. Have a nice day and don't let wikipedia take the joy out of your life Seraphim, I mean it.--Calthinus (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, since "it is a pretty serious accusation and should be supported by a serious argument" then can you please justify your edit and somehow prove to us that the countries of Armenia and Greece have territorial claims towards Turkey? And if you cannot, what does this say about Mr. Cook and your edit that you've been quite persistent on including "as long as it is attributed"? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For editors new to the discussion the sentence is question is:

Some Turks are concerned that a victory for Kurdish separatists could result in a large territorial loss. Support for Armenian, Greek and Kurdish claims on Turkish land contribute to Turkish fears of catastrophic territorial losses.

  • The first part of this has actually been covered in about every background news article that was published back in January (about increasing the influence of separatism across the border). I think what Cook is saying is that Turkish concern about territorial loss is genuine. I am not sure if editors here are trying to argue that the fears are, in fact, not genuine, because the arguments above have been a bit garbled, and editors have refused to explain their position, instead demanding that I prove to us that the countries of Armenia and Greece have territorial claims towards Turkey which does not really seem to be related to the sentence, which is about "Turkish fears" — I'm concerned that this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior may be spillover from other recent discussions, so I think maybe it would be best if everyone takes a breather. Seraphim System (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I made sure to look at what was removed (hence the diff), and if I were the vengeful sort I would probably be on your side seeing as I've had more (serious) disputes with Khirurg than yourself in the past. However it just so happens that I happen to think -- very strongly -- that he is in the right in this case.--Calthinus (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you look at the article? It says:
  • My edit was based on this quote from the article:

These circumstances spawned separatists in the form of the PKK, raising fears among Turks that, should this group prevail in battle, it would shear off a large piece of Turkey’s southeast territory. What, from the perspective of Turks, would this mean for Armenian and Greek claims on current Turkish land? All three Anatolian minorities have strong support in the West, raising fears in Turkey—that seem unreasonable and even conspiratorial to Westerners, but reasonable to Turks—about the country’s dissolution.

  • How is what I added to the article not sufficiently representative the same as what the source said — I think you should strike the FRINGE comment. And Khirurg should probably strike the whole part about the source is not quoted faithfully. The source is not "quoted" at all, let along misquoted.Seraphim System (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

SOHR's increasingly partisan writing style.

Ever since the start of the operation olive branch SOHR has been using very partisan language describing the events that have happened. I think this site has lost its "neutrality" and or credibility and so this site shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source on this site so easily anymore (especially in articles involving Turkey). Here is an example of their newest report about afrin and it is only the first paragraph:

and those who remained did not have mercy due to the security and military consequences, thus, the area turned into just empty houses and the buildings turned from owners’ property, to private property belonging to a fighter or a faction, as if it is a down payment of the absolute loyalty, from a sponsor force, to another one contributed to a major operation whose results were curses to the displaced people Needbrains (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Needbrains: The SOHR hasn't been a neutral source for years—it's supported and worked with FSA fighters since the beginning of the war. I'm not making any assumptions when I say that the SOHR is an anti-Assad and pro-Opposition organisation. The SOHR has also been criticised for refusing to explain how they get their data, other than they "have sources on the ground[in Syria]". Unfortunately, a lot of Western sources cite the SOHR and consider it credible, and if you or someone else was to remove data from SOHR reports on Wikipedia, you'll get a lot of other angry editors demanding a discussion take place that will never conclude. I know this because I tried that a few years ago, and nothing was ever resolved. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, i don't really care about angry editors i care about the quality and neutrality of the sources that are being used on Wikipedia. I think a new discussion should take place with the red line being that SOHR shouldn't be allowed to be used on articles involving Turkey and SDF. Needbrains (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If we would exclude SOHR, which is generally considered reliable (by a lot of verifiable outlets), because they are biased against Turkey in your view, then we would have to exclude all pro-Turkish sources as well. Our job as editors is to present all points of view and not exclude one over another, letting the readers to decide themselves whether they trust the source or not. Thus Wikipedia's neutral stance is preserved. So, the proper course of action is to present what is reported and attribute it to the source, like you properly did with this edit [2] and I thank you for that. EkoGraf (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The use of SOHR should be limited to what has been widely-reported by multiple WP:RS. That is usually the standard for inclusion for similar organizations to determine whether the content is DUE for inclusion. Anything sourced directly to the organization should be removed. Seraphim System (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the SOHR being attributed. After all, they're one of the few reliable sources out there that have covered this conflict. Reliable sources should not be "limited", but encouraged on Wikipedia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: In your edit summary you say editors at the talk page have agreed that it should be attributed, not removed but only 2 editors support this, 3 editors have opposed. There is no agreement [3]. Your revert also does not address the justification given for the removal which is unrelated to attribution. It would have been a better decision to add the content to the article with additional sources to establish due weight before restoring. I don't think it should be very hard, but I so think you should take the time to do this yourself and not expect that other editors should do it for you. (Reverting compounds this issue).Seraphim System (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No, that's three editors including myself (EkoGraf, Needbrains, and myself). Aladeen didn't say "remove it", in fact he said quite the opposite. Also, Needbrains was the one who attributed it here. So it's just you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not remove it per this discussion, which I made clear in my edit summary, it should have been a non-controversial removal of a driveby add to the lede. Restoring it should have been a simple matter of adding a brief discussion about this to the article text. This just seems like it will confuse and deter participation in this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The only reason i attributed it was because i didn't want to start an edit war. Like i said earlier i am against SOHR being used as a primary source describing events including Turkey and SDF Needbrains (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there is one thing about this that should be easy to resolve: I don't think SOHR is a preferred source when mainstream news outlet sources are easily available. At some point this article was starting to resemble an advertisement for SOHR, it was wikilink-ed at least 4 times. I'm generally ok with SOHR being used, but I have some concerns about how it has been used in this article (for example "Turkish holocaust" quote per WP:REDFLAG). My position is basically that I prefer this [4] to this [5]Seraphim System (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Correction: SOHR is currently linked three times in the article text, and also from the infobox. There was a fourth link in the text, but that was removed after a lengthy discussion, so it was actually five wikilinks including the infobox. Seraphim System (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a unreliable tag placed for SOHR. The SOHR has been quoted by numerous mainstream news media outlets including CNN, BBC, Guardian, France 24, WaPo, and practically every other reliable news media outlet. And that's the least of it. Proving that it's reliable will take a little more than placing a tag. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Like i said earlier SOHR is not reliable, biased and even extremly partisan when Turkey is involved. Needbrains (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
None of that means we can't use it, the problems lie with how it is being used. There is not much good information coming out of Syria, so there has been a longstanding disagreement: Is no information better than unreliable information? The community consensus has generally been to urge good judgment, but acknowledged the necessity of using some of these sources. On the other hand, SOHR is not an organization of scholars, military experts, law experts, etc. It's random opinions like "Turkish holocaust" and discussion of broad military strategy are probably not needed and should be excluded.Seraphim System (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Any proof of that, e.g. in the form of reliable sources, or is this just WP:JDL? Khirurg (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Here is one of the many proofs this is just the first paragraph of SOHR's post btw: "and those who remained did not have mercy due to the security and military consequences, thus, the area turned into just empty houses and the buildings turned from owners’ property, to private property belonging to a fighter or a faction, as if it is a down payment of the absolute loyalty, from a sponsor force, to another one contributed to a major operation whose results were curses to the displaced people". Curses, absolute loyality, sponser force... These words are EXTREMELY partisan. Needbrains (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I can only point back to what I already said and what EtienneDolet and Khirurg said. EkoGraf (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I share the reservations voiced about the SOHR having a partisan writing style. Is it too outlandish to suggest that a source that talks about a "Turkish holocaust" might, perhaps, be a little bit biased? One doesn't need any sources for that, one just needs common sense. Of course it would be quoted by reliable news outlets, what it says is still very much newsworthy, but that does not indicate a lack of bias. In fact, the fact that independent, indisputably neutral news outlets or human rights organisations have not adopted this type of rhetoric indicates the bias in SOHR's writing style. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used, it just means that editors should exercise common sense in using it. Seraphim System's idea sounds like a good way to do that. --GGT (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i also think Seraphim System's approach to SOHR is the best way to use it Needbrains (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Rudaw

The fact that a source is "pro-Kurdish" and we use "pro-Turkish" sources is not a good reason to use an unreliable source in an article. Rudaw is unreliable, whatever its POV is. Unreliable content should note be edit warred into articles only because it represents a "pro-Kurdish" POV or any other POV. Edit warring to keep unreliable content in the article for expressly stated POV reasons (and not because it adds anything of encyclopedic value to the article) doesn't meet the standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Seraphim System (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s not all that black and white. We use pro-Kurdish outlets like Rudaw and etc. For official announcements and stats. Same goes for Turkish sources like Anadolu Agency. When it comes to sensitive information like war crimes, we should not use them. This has been the case for quite some time now. I’m curious though, it sounds like your problem is merely with pro-Kurdish outlets like Rudaw, would you say the same for pro-Turkish outlets like Anadolu Agency? Because it’s strange why you kept AA and deleted huge chunks of material sourced to Rudaw. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Have I ever used AA as a source? Seraphim System (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
What’s with the strawman? I never made such an accusation. This is much less about you adding AA and more so about you removing them. So again, I’m curious as to why pro-Kurdish outlets bother you so much when there are pro-Turkish outlets all over that nfobox. Oh, and by the way, “pro-Turkish” is to put it mildly, these are Erdogan’s mouth pieces. So under your logic, those sources should be removed too, right? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, yes, but AA is fine as a source for official TSK casualty figures. Rudaw is not an official source for anything and the cite in the article is not for any kind of official announcement of SDF casualty figures [6], it is a YPG claim of killing FSA fighters. Did you actually check to see what you were restoring before hitting revert and assuming bad faith? Also, noting that this has since been changed to "Per SDF" by another editor, but when I removed it (And you restored it) it said per-PKK. Instead of knee jerk edit warring with me, please focus on correcting these errors and improving sourcing as many of the editors here are trying to do.Seraphim System (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Rudaw is a news agency that is affiliated with the KDP in Iraq so that's as official as it can get from the Kurdish community since there's no independent Kurdish nation-state. As for what the source says, you're free to modify the wording to reflect it better. But I was merely responding to your rationale when it comes to the removal of pro-Kurdish news outlets. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation ongoing

AussieTruthSeeker, first, you may consider The Guardian and The National "dubious", but they are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Second, like I said in my edit summary, Turkey itself has stated Operation "Olive Branch", which is the subject of this article, to be still ongoing. They publish weekly operational briefings, constantly updating the number of SDF fighters they have "neutralized" in their operations against them in the Afrin region as part of "Olive Branch". Even Erdogan himself has stated the operation will be achieved when the Turks take Tal Rifaat. Third, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and at the moment there are no sources that state Operation "Olive Branch" has ended. So please, engage in a discussion here on the talk page and seek a consensus, as per Wiki policy, for any major changes to the article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Marjdabi: Hello Marjdabi! First of all I want to say that I did not remove your contribution out of malice, but because they have extensive problems:

  • The images you have added were taken by the YPG/YPJ, and even though Turkey designates them as terrorist organizations, they can still hold copyright - Even ISIL and al-Qaeda members do hold copyright, so that we cannot use their images on Wikipedia. You should only upload media that is stated to be copryight-free. For example, the Qasioun News Agency states under their videos that they are Creative Commons, so you can upload screenshots or entire videos from them - They are a good source for images/videos in opposition-held areas.
  • Furthermore, the entire section about the suicide bombing is already discussed in the section about the offensive itself; a separate section just for suicide bombings only makes sense when there were several, but there were not, so this is WP:UNDUE.
  • I do not deny that the reports mention that the YPG/YPJ used or still uses child soldiers. These reports do not mention YPG/YPJ child soldiers in the Afrin District during the operation, however, so this section has no place here.
  • Finally, the decision not to use certain sources such as specific Turkish and Russian newspapers for controversial topics, including war crime accusations, has been the result of several discussions that took place in the last few years. In addition, bombings are already mentioned in the "Turkish stabilization efforts and SDF insurgency". This section is barebones, of course, so it would be great if you could expand it with reports about the numerous bombings that took place in the last months. Try to find more reliable sources; Western sources can generally be used, but you can also use native Syrian media like Zaman al-Wasl and others. These sources also have a bias and problems, but are considered to be somewhat more reliable for these topics than Russian and Turkish media.

I hope you can see now why I removed your expansions. Applodion (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I ever said you removed to contributions out of malice, they are removed because of bias. The events are significant and need a section of their own. I can agree with the copyright work if you really suggest it will make a difference.

  • The suicide bombing is a major event and controversy of the campaign that require a section on its own, rather than a single sentence during the offensive section. Similarly since TFSA war crimes have their own option the SDF war crimes require a section as well. And the SDF war crimes have caused more civilian and material casualties than the TFSA one so it does need a section ofits own.
  • The source which claims YPG recruiting soldiers in Afrin does mention them recruiting children during the offensive. And so does the daily sabah website.
  • The decision not to use certain newspapers would make this absolute, along with other articles regarding Syrian Civil War,since these specific countries are the few sources reporting the events in detail. This includes the countless Kurdish sources all of which are biased towards the Kurdish side, as well as the Al Masdar website which is owned by the Syrian Governement, (Which is used extensively in Wikipedia covering Syrian Civil War articles.) So if you want to pull out sources you feel are biased the entire article would become obsolete. So please stop applying your bias that the Pro Kurdish sources have greater legitimacy over the Turkish sources or the Russian sources. Both are allowed to be included in the article. If one of them is. The contribution I've made significantly improves the articles quality, and there is no specific reason to remove the entirety of the article. Marjdabi (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Marjdabi: After thinking about it, you are probably right that the suicide bombing deserves its own section. Furthermore, this article confirms that the YPG used child soldiers during the operation, but the other references do not mention the Afrin operation and are unnecessary. I also think it would be best to move the section about the child soldiers to "Composition of forces". Finally, the sources you named like pro-YPG newspapers and al-Masdar News should also not be used as sources for controversial topics - just like Turkish and Russian sources, they can be used for non-contentious infos about military actions (where the frontline is, which militias and commanders are part of a battle, etc.). This is not my decision, the community agreed to handle these sources in this way to improve the neutrality. Applodion (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. A single suicide bombing by an individual fighter with little tactical and strategic consequences doesn't deserve to have an entire section, as if it was a significant tactic used during the offensive. It is by no means a "major event". It's better to mention it as a sentence or two in the offensive section. The "US-backed" part should also be removed as YPG/J forces in the Afrin Region were never supported by the US. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It was a mistake that the article was missing this the whole time, the controversial tactics and war crimes are listed in the article in detail. This section is one of the biggest if not biggest factor of the controversy of the campaign, it does require a section on its own as it is one of the biggest events during the campaign. The US backed part is included as the fighters received support from the US armed section of the group. Afrin region was not directly supported by the US but the US supported fighters traveled to Afrin during the operation.Marjdabi (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
As Editor abcdef has said, the bombing wasn't really notable to deserve an entire section. But that it should be mentioned in a few sentences I agree. EkoGraf (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Operation "ongoing"

To what extent is the Operation still ongoing? SDF battle of Raqqa resulted in an ISIS insurgency going on to this day, which results in around 5-10 SDF deaths every week. Yet that article is dubbed as Decisive SDF victory. What I suggest is 2 status conditions, one in which says the main operation resulted in "Decisive Turkish victory" and the insurgency phase as "ongoing". When the operation is dubbed as ongoing it makes it appear is if there is still an operation being conducted, while it stopped almost 6 months ago now. The bombings and assassinations are not a part of the "Operation phase", as the title of the article mentions. Marjdabi (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree operation olive branch has been completed. The aftermath should get its own article Bibilili (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The Turkish government has stated that the operation is ongoing, AND the YPG holdouts continue to fight - One has to compare it with the the Iraq War: This conflict did not end with the invasion, it was simply its start. I do not think that one can compare the ISIL insurgency around Raqqa with this case, as there appear to be much fewer ISIL bombings/attacks than YPG bombings/attacks. It is often not even clear who is carrying out the attacks in Raqqa, as both Syrian government loyalists and Turkish-supported FSA insurgents claim to be active in the area - these factions might include ex-ISIL fighters, but their insurgency would not be the same as an insurgency by ISIL. Furthermore, more than just NDF units were involved in the operation, namely militias from Nubl and al-Zahraa and the Baqir Brigade; the latter are part of the LDF which in turn is part of the regular armed forces. Applodion (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
To what extent is the operation "ongoing". Leaving the status as ongoing makes it appear as if the operation is still in the same phase as 6 months ago. Where as it is reduced one hundred to one since that day. A new status saying Decisive Turkish victory - Start of insurgency would make it more appropriate. The low level insurgency taking place is not a part of the operation and requires an article on its own. Other than the Military Operation part. The misleading infobox needs a better explanation asap. Marjdabi (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
What I suggest is making a separate insurgency article, conclude the operation phase as Decisive Turkish FSA victory with an underline in the result section "Start of SDF insurgency in Afrin" redirecting to the new article. While also removing the contents of insurgency from the Operation phase. The article is already crowded and needs to be cut into two. Marjdabi (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Your view that the operation is finished is WP:OR, as one can easily find sources that clearly state that "Olive Branch" is ongoing: This pro-Turkish site for example says "Turkey's ongoing Operation Olive Branch" in an article from 7 June 2018. Applodion (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Applodion. On Wikipedia we edit according to the sources, while unsourced edits are considered Original Research and are not permitted. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, as far as the sources go, Turkey itself has stated Operation "Olive Branch", which is the subject of this article, is still ongoing. They publish weekly operational briefings, constantly updating the number of SDF fighters they have "neutralized" in their operations against them in the Afrin region as part of "Olive Branch". Even Erdogan himself has stated the operation will be achieved when the Turks take Tal Rifaat. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and at the moment there are no sources that state Operation "Olive Branch" has ended, especially in a victory. The infobox already differentiates between two distinct phases in the "dates" section, the "Main combat phase" (which ended in late March) and the "SDF insurgency". In the section territorial changes it is already stated that most of the region has been seized by Turkish-back forces. I would remind that US operations such as Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) were ongoing for years, long after the main combat phases had ended, due to the insurgencies that followed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with multiple editors that say that there are insurgencies going on in every part of Syria. In SDF areas ISIS, regime and rebel cells are daily bombing, attacking and ambushing SDF targets. I think its unfair to say that the battle of Afrin isnt over, because that also means that the battle of raqqa isnt over. However i do support the current status-quo we should wait for the announcement of the Turkish army when they officialy say that the operation is over. The "SDF insurgency" phase should be changed to"post combat phase". I also agree with changing the name of this article to Operation Olive Branch. Needbrains (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
An insurgency is a combat phase of a conflict; we could only call it post-combat phase when all fighting has stopped. Applodion (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Afrin

There is article is completely misnamed and is literally incompetent. The ground given for rejecting the exactly usual name used throughout Wikipedia for exactly such events is:

(Editor abcdef moved page Battle of Afrin (2018) to Turkish military operation in Afrin over redirect: Don't move without consensus. The operation includes much more than just the battle in March, initial offensive, insurgency and counter-insurgency, etc)


> The operation includes much more than just the battle in March initial offensive, insurgency and counter-insurgency, etc)

1. The battle wasn't in March. It was, if anything, from 20 Jan 2018 - ~18 March 2018. It is to be wondered where the editor gets his information.

2. The insurgency and counter insurgency can be put under the head of battle, or its consequences, sequelae etc. Or these can be put in another article. This is not a point of distinction with "Turkish military operation": if anything that title is more decisively excluded by the very same points. The enemy of the insurgency is principally the TFSA militias, not the Turkish military, which has almost no presence. It is thus not part of a "Turkish military operation". The one thing that is without doubt is that "Olive Branch" is over, just as "Euphrates Shield" is over. The principal specifically TURKISH aspect was the use of the Turkish air force, which is no longer active. The editors points are in fact AGAINST rather than in favor of the current title, which has something of the character of fake news.

3. There are many ways to divide up this material but "Turkish military operation in Afrin" is not one of them. On the ground, the opponents were TFSA militias and YPG / SDF. The Turkish role was almost entirely restricted to the air. Thus to speak of the Afrin events as a 'Turkish military operation' is a simple falsification. IF THE CORRECT TITLE IS "TURKISH MILITARY OPERATION IN AFRIN" then the correct title of "Battle of Raqqa (2017) is "AMERICAN MILITARY OPERATION IN RAQQA" which is absurd. Indeed, since the US provided the principal air power in the Battle of Mosul, and only some ground troops, that article too should be called "AMERICAN MILITARY OPERATION IN MOSUL", which would be completely unreal.

4. That one speaks of 'Euphrates Shield' even now is due to the simple fact that there was nothing else to unite the areas recovered from ISIS. (Curiously there is a Battle of al Bab, but not a Battle of Jarablus, Azaz etc.) .

5. If this is not an article on the battle of Afrin, then where in wikipedia is the article on the battle of Afrin?

6. Consensus is quite desirable. The only earlier discussion took place before the end of the battle, when an article "Battle of Afrin city" was merged with this one. The present title is simply wrong. It does not represent the 'operation' as having two or more sides, but puts it in the category of a police sweep. I don't understand the purpose of this obvious falsification of reality, but it strongly suggests a political aim.

Chief sequoya (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, "Battle of Afrin" is no better title (does it mean the battle for Afrin Canton or Afrin Region or Afrin city?), and the insurgency is clearly part of the larger campaign. Furthermore, point 3 is somewhat misguided: The Turkish military was the leading part of the anti-SDF coalition, both in regards to command and actual firepower. While the TFSA was numerically stronger, it is up to debate to what extent any of the TFSA units operated independently; for the most part, they appear to have acted as auxiliaries (with the excepition of a few better trained groups). Some of your criticism is correct, however, and I think the best course of action would be to rename the article to "Operation Olive Branch" as it is the most fitting title without being too POV. Applodion (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the name of the article should be "Operation Olive Branch", just like the article for the other operation is named as Operation Euphrates Shield. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with moving the article to Operation Olive Branch. This has been open over a month without objections so I am going to boldly move the article to "Operation Olive Branch". Seraphim System (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Create three new sub-articles

I propose that we create three new articles related to the Operation Olive Branch page. Two of these pages already exist but I think due to the existence of these pages, an article regarding the initial offensive should exist as well. Thus this page will be similar to Operation Euphrates Shield, which is split into numerous smaller articles about the individual battles.

I propose the following pages:

--FPSTurkey (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading Language

There seem to be a few poor citations and phrases scattered throughout the article: particularly, a habit of quoting sources that latch onto a single quote or citation that is taken out of context, such as to try and invent a claim that the YPG is considered a terrorist organisation or subservient to the outlawed PKK, when such positions are not in line with actual policy of involved countries like France or the United States. I've corrected some of these, and will try and find further unbiased sources to ensure the article remains relatively neutral.

NE Syria operation

Still hope it wont happen, but there is an interesting read about it. - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/07/us-withdrawal-syria-war-crimes-erdogan-refugees-kurdish-turkey Yug (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch/Archive_2&oldid=1183101980"