Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria/Archive 3

Including statements by President Trump
Should we include: 1.) The statements from President Trump labeling the Rojava administration "no angels" and making reference to the PKK, who he called "probably" worse than ISIS? That's a major foreign policy change that is notable enough for the lead paragraphs. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could also paste from Wikimedia the letter that President Trump sent to President Erdogan? ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been talked about. The lede is not the place for Trump's personal opinions about the PKK, their and/or Rojavas absence in Normandy, fact checker disproven claims, or whatever. If and when it establishes notability, then we might consider adding it to the lede. Not everything from a president's mouth is the *most important* aspect to discuss.--Calthinus (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of an entire section, "ABC News footage controversy"
Has deleted the entire "ABC News footage controversy" section without discussion and a summary saying "nothing burger". Please discuss and reach consensus before making bold edits like this, several users have added cited material to this section and there should be a discussion for its removal. I have reverted the users edit and a consensus should be reached whether to remove it or not. KasimMejia (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement. It is a "nothing burger". --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you think that you cannot delete it unilaterally without discussion, you should seek consensus on it at the talk page. KasimMejia (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think it should be deleted, but maybe it should later be integrated into "media portrayal" section, should one exist, and/or moved to ABC article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't think it should be deleted, I support integration proposed by Smeagol 17. KasimMejia (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay, (also I added it) because it shows the disinformation going on. Every event like this should be added and expanded into the article. Beshogur (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Belongs in media portrayal. As a standalone, its very undue. In another section, sure. And yes it is kind of a nothing burger.--Calthinus (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Erdogan in infobox
He's not commanding the operation, or in command why is here there? Beshogur (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is the commander in chief. KasimMejia (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We should only use the sourced and actual commanders of the operation. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Heads of state who are commander in chief are typically included.--Calthinus (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Commander in chief is only if the country is in war status. Turkey isn't. Look at Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch, he's definitely not included. Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a war, quacks like a war...--Calthinus (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. They are included in the overall war, not for specific operations. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Turkish constitution article 92: If the country is subjected to sudden armed aggression, while the Grand National Assembly of Turkey is adjourned or in recess, and it thus becomes imperative to decide immediately on the use of the armed forces, the President of the Republic can decide on the use of the Turkish Armed Forces. Beshogur (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 * Added additional source that its contested as well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The 52 towns captured needs altering, as that included Ras al-Ayn (and also, given its age) the two villages recaptured yesterday. Or (at least) do not put it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree figure needs updating, although SOHR hasn't provided a new number the last few days. Maybe add the date as of which 52 were captured or something like that, so readers would know its an old one. EkoGraf (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leave out information that is either widely out of date or actually false in the first place. Instead use only information form third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be taken out until its fully captured. Also what is this pre operation casualty box even about? No citation what so ever, can we take that out too? KasimMejia (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There needs to =be more then that this may not be an isolated incident. The infobox should not contain this kind of error, and until we only use fully independent sources for claims in the infobox it will continue to include errors of this kind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the infobox has placed an uncited box to the left of background section. I don't understand what this box is supposed to represent and can't see a citation for it. Yug, can you take it out or explain please? KasimMejia (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What did this "Agree it should be taken out until its fully captured." refer to?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean that, yes I referred to RasAlAyn. What do you mean neutral sources in the infobox? Aren't they already neutral? All the info there is SOHR. KasimMejia (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So why did the infobox say Ras al-Ayn had been captured when it had not been? Can you not see why this raises doubts about anything in the infobox?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol why are you blaming me for it? I didn't add it, in fact asked for its removal since I couldnt because of 1RR. Whoever placed it did it via original research. KasimMejia (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How did I blame you? All I said was this would be avoidable if we used only the best sources we can find, totally involved ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SOHR is reliable, original research is not reliable. KasimMejia (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SOHR provided an updated number of areas captured today and confirmed Ras al-Ayn besieged and contested. Added to the infobox. The earlier addition of Ras al-Ayn as a captured town in the infobox was made by someone without providing a source and was contrary to the existing cited sources in the infobox, namely SOHR, which stated it was still being contested. So it was basically an unsourced POV/OR edit by someone. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

The Syrian National Army is a military group which is present in the info box. I don't see the reasoning of NOT including military groups which can't otherwise be accurated represented through civilian bodies as is the case with the Syrian National Army and International Freedom Battalion. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IFB shouldn't be there either Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the 1RR limit
Is being discussed here. El_C 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Ethnic cleansing
Several sources are writing about ethnic cleansing during the turkish operation. Should we not include this aspect and reflect it in the Wikipedia article? 51.174.7.31 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given this (mainly) seems to be hyperbole from Netyy no not really.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * On one hand, if it's published by reputable sources (which they are) and is relevant to the article, (which it is) it definitely deserves to be included. On the other- this is going to open a huge can of worms, as that definition is vehemently opposed by Turkey and it's allies. So, insted, as a neutral and compromise variant, instead of adding that "the offensive is part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing", it should instead be listed as "According to XYZ sources, the offensive has allegedly included elements of ethnic cleansing against the Kurdish minority". In doing so, Wikipedia itself avoids making claims as to wether or not this is true and leaves it to the reader to form his own conclusions on wether or not ethnic cleansing is taking place, based on the provided citations. This would be a WP:NPOV-compliant method of including it and will conveniently avoid an edit war. So I'd say - add it to the article, but make sure to include information as to who has defined the operation this way. Goodposts (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think if this goes into the page, I'd advise whoever to raise it in this thread first, so as to come to an agreement on how to present the material. I will certainly if in the future I decide to write it (I personally don't see a place for it on the page at the present moment -- but the situation may develop further).--Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Almost all of those stories are opinion/letter pieces, not news or facts. Netty was already covered in the Reactions section. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


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

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

SDF shelling vs killed by Turkey
Why it's written like this? Isn't here double standarts. People are talking like Turkey killed them on purpose and SDF killing them as collateral damage. Beshogur (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest that is because at least some of the Syrian deaths are due to gunfire, all the ones in turkey are due to shelling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's from gunfire? Provide some source please. Beshogur (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I quote our article "Seven civilians were killed in Syria by Turkish forces in the Tal Abyad area including three killed by Turkish snipers according to SOHR."....Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

cease fire
"Halt in fighting within five days would allow Kurdish fighters to withdraw beyond a designated safe zone", its not happened yet, and as the SDF was not party to the discussions its not biding on them, hence may not even be implemented.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC) This was admitly strange, considering the U.S. no longer actively supports the Kurds on the ground and since the SFD and Syrian Army is winning back areas. We'll just have to wait and see what the Kurds, Syrians, and Russians will have to say about this. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the place for such discussions, but whilst the status may be" USA and Turkey agree a ceasefire" this is all we can say, as no one else has agreed to its provisions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019
In part “status”,reuters news agency’s report about the truce doesn’t say that SDF hand over the area of retreat to turkey! Soran8552002 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done . --Cold Season (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019
In the part “ status “ the reuters report about the truce says that mike pence agreed with retreat of SDF fighters but doesn’t mention 32 km retreat which is the turkey goal. That could be the safe zone suggested by USA which had 5-14 km depth.Soran8552002 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make.  Please make a precise request.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Name of the belligerents in the infobox (again)
Can this be solved once and for all? Ever since this operation began somebody has been changing the names at the infobox non stop. There are almost 10 changes everyday back and forth by different users. From Turkey to Republic of Turkey. Or from Syrian Interim Gov to Turkish Backed Free Syrian Army. etc... Can we just reach a consensus and keep the same names from now on? I suggest using ALL sides with their FULL and POLITICAL name. SO: REPUBLIC OF TURKEY - SYRIAN INTERIM GOVERNMENT and AUTONOMOUS ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH AND EAST SYRIA - SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC. Please give your opinions below. KasimMejia (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I prefer what the sources states, what they are most commonly known as, and what previous Wikipedia articles refer to them as. So Turkey, Syria, SFD, TBFSA etc. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's already an ongoing discussion on this here: . Why start a new Talk page section on it? David O. Johnson (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The AAONAES... is not used by anyone. Rojava is. Turkey, likewise, not Republic of Turkey. On the other hand, the Syrian Arab Republic is not the only claimant on "Syria", so we should use the SAR for that. --Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who uses "rojava"? No international entity or mainstream media outlet does. I would suggest SDF or YPG instead. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "No mainstream media outlet does"? What on earth are you talking about? | the NYTimes and Rojava -- 16,300 results | Reuters and Rojava -- 35,400 results, list goes on... --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

[], so no cautious calm has not prevailed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned the clashes at Ras al-Ayn. SOHR says there is a cautious calm except for minor clashes at Ras al-Ayn. The ceasefire seems to have gone into affect midnight last night local time. Haven't seen reports of airstrikes since then. I assume SDF is shooting at Turkish SNA troops and they are shooting back at Ras al-Ayn. KasimMejia (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and it is still to early to say this, its not even been 12 hours yet into the 18th. Anything can happen in the next half hour.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if anything happens we can change it to, caution calm prevailed in the morning but then...... happened. If it happens. KasimMejia (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or we change it now to reflect the fact its not done and dusted. We are misleading the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. KasimMejia (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Major undiscussed revert from the lede
Can you please undo your revert here ? The reason those were there is because not all of EU nor all of the Arab League has condemned the action. In the paragraph above it says EU and Arab League condemned it and you just took out the exceptions, those who didn't condemn. Please self revert until consensus is reached on keeping those out. The countries are: Hungary for EU and Libya, Somalia and Qatar for Arab League who didn't condemn. KasimMejia (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Hungary did not block the joint EU resolution. Nor did Libya (a government in the middle of its own civil war), Qatar (a pariah among Arab states) or Somalia (not even Arab and also a government of dubious actual control of its territory) block the joint Arab League resolution. So how exactly does this collection of paper tigers and pariahs matter for the lede?--Calthinus (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling those countries by names does not change the fact that they did not condemn the action. The lede says EU and Arab League condemn and we are required to write those who didn't. Hungary did not condemn the operation. And neither did UN recognized government of Libya or Somalia (which is a Arab League member) nor Qatar. So please self revert. Otherwise the lede makes readers believe all members of EU and Arab League condemned the operation. KasimMejia (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said it did. What I said is that they didn't matter. And your last sentence is partially correct in fact, though not in the distributive sense, because both of those organizations collectively condemned the operation, and none of Turkey's alleged defenders within them vetoed the resolution.--Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article didn't say they vetoed it either. It just said these particular countries did not condemn the operation which is correct. So not all EU or Arab League condemned it. That's why it shouldn't be removed. Doesn't matter how much the countries matter or not. We cannot say a whole union or league did something when some members didn't. KasimMejia (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it did "and vetoed the EU declaration".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It said for Hungary that, it initially vetoed but later agreed. Which is what happened. 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hungary was originally blocking it |because it doesn't want those Mooslim migrants and would rather they be resettled in a warzone, and admitted as much... but then it changed it's position-- i.e. |According to the German weekly which refers to several EU diplomats, Hungary was the only member who issued a veto while all other EU countries agreed. This resulted in the delay of the issue of the declaration which has eventually been accepted – with Hungary’s support – in the evening. Hungary's personal stance continues to be that it supports the operation as long as migrants end up in Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well a non EU country could not veto an EU choice. And if it eventually agreed its rather irrelevant it did not at first. Its the lede, only major relevant parts of the article should be summarized there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm confused, Hungary is in the EU, but I think we agree?--Calthinus (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And what is the current EU stance?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the reactions article, EU as whole condemned except for Hungary. So while it did not veto it also refused to condemn I guess. As for the three Arab League countries, they also refused to condemn. Yet when the article says EU and Arab League condemned it makes it seem as these 4 countries did too. KasimMejia (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede is for summarizing the MAJOR parts of the article. Whilst it can be argued that the EU issuing a formal condemnation is pretty major, Hungary not doing so is not. However if the EU's reaction in not a major part of the article it should not even be in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

When people think of those organizations, they do not think of any of these four countries, to be frank. They are all peripheral. Someone who is interested in their stances will go to the Reactions to page, assuming it is not deleted.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the fact that (for example) Hungary has not agreed to the condemnation it not really relevant to the EU's official stance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they do think of them. Both Libya and Somalia are huge countries. It's important that they didn't condemn. Also important that Hungary a EU member refused to condemn either, as for Qatar, there is no reason not the include it since its another non condemning Arab League member. And last but not least, we cannot give false statements and leave these countries out. I initially made a small note about them but  moved it to the lede because as I learned after his edit, we cannot make notes like that. KasimMejia (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If a statement was made by a body then its not false to say they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not made by the Arab League body. Acc to the source in the article only the head of Arab League condemned it, since Libya Somalia and Qatar refused. As for EU the source doesn't mention a body wide statement neither. I once again suggest the mention of opposing countries. KasimMejia (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but this does [] "The EU condemns Turkeyʼs unilateral military...".Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, though I still think Hungary should be mentioned as non condemning, I don't see a source saying Hungary did in fact condemn it though there are many about its veto's. Also the Arab League didn't even leave a body wide statement apparently. KasimMejia (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? we do not even mention this in the body. And besides this was issued in the name of the EU. As to the AL, separate issue lets get one thing sorted out at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok let's not Hungary then but do add the 3 Arab League members not condemning. KasimMejia (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Do they matter?--Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said many times, we cannot write false statements even if things don't matter. KasimMejia (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede is already overly bloated, I would suggest removing the Arab League totally as its not clear if this was a league wide condemnation or not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the best thing to do. There are still many in the Arab League who did condemn. I suggest just writing that Libya, Somalia and Qatar did not condemn. It's just one sentence. KasimMejia (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a league wide condemnation. Organizations do not equal the sum of their members (and certainly not a sum with equal weighting of each). They are distinct entities as well. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No source states this a was league wide condemnation. Source only says the head of the League condemned it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can find it was AL foreign ministers, in fact this seems to have been made by The League's secretary general, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. So its not the same as the EU issuing a formal press release.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok lets take it out fully than as suggested by Slatersteven. Arab League doesn't seem to have condemned it. KasimMejia (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Media discusses it as an "Arab League statement", not one made individually by members []. So do we. There is also this separate "communiqué" they made later, see here from (Qatari :) ) Al Jazeera : |The Arab League called for the United Nations Security Council to take measures to force Turkey to halt its military offensive and "immediately" withdraw its forces from Syria.--Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It says that "Two member countries, Qatar and Somalia, expressed reservations about the communique. " meaning they abstained from it. Guess we write that those two did not condemn. Still not a AL wide statement. But I'll be going AFK now. My last proposal for the solution is some sort of mention that this was not an Arab League statement supported by all. Or just take it out fully, goodnight. KasimMejia (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not say "the Arab League" but instead "an Arab League statement condemned"? Night. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not mean that, it means they only partially agreed with it. To have obstained they would have had to have said "we wholly disagree with this". This is why wp:v is so important.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion some time ago on that part of the lede. It was achieved soon although it was still ongoing, though I have not had time to start with it again. In my view, that part of the lede is patent and unbalanced POV. Why? I agree that those countries that have supported Turkey's actions are not strong (though Qatar is an important actor in the Middle East region: lots of money -> considerable influence). However, since there are listed several entities that have condemned the offensive, then there should be noted that a few countries have backed Turkey's position. Or at the least, Russia's mixed stance should be included. Otherwise, no matter what nightmare the offensive is, its coverage on Wikipedia keeps another POV issue. The lede says that several entities have condemned the offensive, but nowehere does it say that others have been less condemning/"neutral" or have expressed support. That the lede is a summary should not be interpreted that it should be a summary of only one stance on the subject. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No country that matters has supported the op (Qatar has fallen on some hard times, so it's clout is not what it used to be, though it still has Al Jazeera). As for the two big question marks that do matter, there's the US and Russia, the first of which has given a number of contradictory statements (in no small part because different parts of the government vehemently disagree) and the second of which has been coy. And there's China's stance. If you want to write a sentence about those go ahead. I have tried and given up on something I think would be adequate for the lede on those two. --Calthinus (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That Qatar has conflicts with Saudi Arabia ans a few others does not make it lack sufficient influence. Also, why does India's position matter more than Qatar's or Pakistan's? However, what matters in the end is that countries that expressed opinions are divided, the very majority are against, some "neutral" and a few others have supported Turkey. I am not going to make additions to the article, I just wanted to say that I see that part of the lede as countering with NPOV rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * India is considered an "emerging great power" with a significant influence in the Middle East. Pakistan is significant but I don't think it passes the threshold necessary, especially given its isolation. Qatar's "clout" really has taken a hit, it's much less of a thing[].--Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We could however include the Turkic League's position.--Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not plan to make more than one or two comments here. Anyways, I am talking about NPOV: if the lede says that some countries have condemnded the offensive, it should also say that a few others have expressed "neutral" opinions or supported the offensive. My point is that the offensvie has attracted various reactions, not to make an analysis whether X or Y country has gained or lost enough influence to be added to the lede (Brazil too is considered by some as an emerging super power. Brazil, China and Russia are not in the lede. India is. Qatar has influence and Pakistan is one of the most imortant Muslim countries. Anyways.). The way the content is written, it gives some limited impression that everyone is condemning the offensive. IMO, the most proper addition would be "The majority of the countries that have reacted to the offensive have condemned it, though others have expressed mixed or supportive opinions". However, other wordings (such as the one re the Turkic League) would still be good. Even if that part of the lede is not changed at all, it is not a major concern for me. A few sentences on an Wikipedia article will not change the suffering of innocent people or put an end to the conflict, unfortunately. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the lede is better now. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkey denied the claims
We already have turkey deny the use of chemical weapons, why do we need it twice? Would it not make more sense to just say "turkey has denied the allegations" once?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where do we have it twice? It's written once that Turkey denied the accusation. KasimMejia (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a section about Turkish denials, and then a separate "but denied the accusation" in the paragraph above. So why do we need Turkish denials in both paragraphs?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? "Kurdish medics have claimed that a number of children have chemical burns, the UN has announced it is investigating alleged use of white phosphorus by Turkey. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the UK’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear regiment, said of wounds he had been shown pictures of: “The most likely culprit is white phosphorus”. Turkey has also been accused of using Napalm by the SDF but denied the accusation.[267][268][269] Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar in response to the allegations stated that SDF was planning to use chemical weapons to blame it on Turkey and stated that it was widely known that Turkish armed forces did not have any chemical weapons in their inventory.[270] Turkish media also criticized Foreign Policy magazine of using a photo of tires burning as evidence of white phosphorus.[271]" I see it only once. KasimMejia (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Errr


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


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


 * Is how it is written, one paragraph about the claims, and one about the denials. Yet we have a Turkish denial also in the first paragraph (it should be in the second).Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok you can move it to the second paragraph. KasimMejia (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


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

Images again
The pro-Kurdish protest in Berlin is back as a picture. I want it out. I don't think we should be using images this way.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be out. Because a single picture can not define how everybody feels about it. We can display a similar image of pro-Turkish protests and give the image of everyone supporting the offensive. KasimMejia (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue used to be worse before. Image choices should be of the major events, not what some people in Berlin think, which comes off as either self-congratulating Westerners (see we're not all evil, we care!!!) or bandwagoning. The pic does have a place on the "Reactions to" page where we could also have the pro-Turkish demonstrations in probably Bosnia. Imho. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019
In 18 October 2019 ANF news agency reported that “The Turkish military helicopter which Turkish officials said had crashed turned out to have been downed by SDF fighters.” https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/people-s-resistance-day-10-live-blog-38534 Soran8552002 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for third-party source confirmation.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have not for many other things.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Russia supporting SDF and Syria against Turkish operation
This seems a false addition. The source only mentions Russia patrolling in between the two to prevent clashes. This doesn't necessarily mean it is supporting the fighting sides in their fight against Turkey. I think it should be taken out until a source specifically states Russia is in fact supporting them to fight against Turkey. KasimMejia (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Beshogur (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SDF Commander-in-Chief Gen Mazloum Kobani to al-Arabia TV: Russia supports Turkey and wants to protect its interests Beshogur (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal, Russia only took over US bases and patrolling streets, it's not fighting directly or indirectly (arming Kurds) to fight Turkey. I don't know why there's a trend in wikipedia to keep adding countries that have only minimal relationship with each other as (supported by) to indicated an alliance to one group or as an enemy to another. Graull (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Issue with daily map.
I've made these into one thread, as per the wishes of Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of the map
Looks like the gif map is removed again with the claim of WP:SYNTH this time. I find this false. Everything which is included in the map is written inside the article. Every town that changed hands for example is written with source. So I think should self revert. What are other users thoughts on this? KasimMejia (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal until issues are resolved.--Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why does no map in an RS tally with it? Also read wp:syntases.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is WP:SYNTH to show which towns have been captured or not. What's the difference whether SOHR includes all town's status under one article, or SOHR includes town's status in different articles? KasimMejia (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed the map on the grounds that it is WP:SYNTH and also that the sources cited to it don't appear to be WP:RS compliant. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, because what was true at 2PM may not have been true at 2:30PM. So just adding up all the towns in all the press releases is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have come here from the Teahouse, out of curiosity, I have seen the .gif in question, and checked out the source (https:southernfront.org). I do not understand the controversy. I find any comments about RS to  be confusing, such as : "Actually I removed the map on the grounds that it is WP:SYNTH and also that the sources cited to it don't appear to be WP:RS compliant", because the source (southernfront.org) does not cite any sources (reliable or not) and the statement that it is not WP:RS compliant does not appear to be relevant. I think that the claim of WP:SYNTH needs to be justified. It is a map of a changing on the ground situation. If anyone has any idea of its source or its veracity, I would like to see it. In other words rather than claim that it doesn't meet RS standards, prove it. Anyone can make that claim about anything. Twitter, blogs, iMDB are not RS and mentions of them in disputed edits are de rigeur, but I have seen nothing of the same in this case. I personally find it informative and useful in obtaining a picture of the current situation and as such it is important. So I really don't understand the real objection to it's inclusion.Oldperson (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone, go to "Removal of changing frontlines map" above to see my response. I think I covered most of the issues mentioned here, although I probably misunderstood some of them Nate Hooper (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see maps removal correct because, according to SOHR. Which is the main source of this article, they state Group A entered here and Group B entered here. The map just displays that. SOHR says SAA entered Manbij, that's what the map shows. SOHR says Turkey entered Tall Abyad, again that's what the map shows. It is not therefore a false map, or original research. If we are calling it non reliable then the entire article should be deleted since its written by the same sources. As for Wp:Synth, again the entire article should be deleted since article writes who controls what too. KasimMejia (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this one one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove this file from the article? ,. You have violated 1RR too by the way. KasimMejia (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed this gif file from the articles, looking at infoboxes below "notes". Bonthefox3 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please self revert you have violated 1RR, I have left you a message at your talk page. KasimMejia (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

And another RS whose map does not support what what ours shows []. So again I ask what is the source for our (clearly) OR map?12:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Nor does Syria live map (even if it is an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the map should be fixed to match RS. But I think it is very useful to have. Perhaps the best way to avoid complicated issues is to have two maps rather than a gif with every day-- one for October 8 and one for the present situation.--Calthinus (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just like to know what is the source for that map.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source appears to be here Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At best this source is highly dubious as their "about" makes it clear they don't even adhere to professional journalistic standards; let alone anything approaching the rigor appropriate for an encyclopedia.Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell their 17th map does not match our map for the 17th.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to have doubts about the reliability of this.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have had my doubts for a while now [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, just thought I'd try my best to respond to any concerns you have. I used mutiple sources for the gif, not just southfront. Three are listed in the description. In addition, much of it was just from individual articles which say this town or that town were taken. I know liveuamaps is not RS (indeed, it's bad repuation has become a bit of a joke in my circles), but it does show each source for each claim that it makes, which can be checked. Just tell me what you want me to do. I can focus on 1 source (to avoid WP:SYNTH), but please, not CNN, their map is terrible. Or I can use a different source entirely. If you have specific disagreements (eg: this town on this frame should be owned by that group, I am happy to change it). Just know that it's very hard to balance differing sources, even the most reliable disagree with each other, so I don't feel that WP:SYNTH is an entirely correct way of stating what I do, although there may be some truth to it. I check the claims made by a number of sources (because really, I feel that I have to), see which ones are backed by evidence and accept the most evidence-based claims from each. I only average the difference if it's over wide, baron desert with no towns to check (what other option do I have?) But anyway, I'm happy to make changes, I'm not sure if I understood all the problems, so if I misunderstood something, just let me know. Thanks guys Nate Hooper (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion looks good to me. I have misgivings about the comments by Slater and Simon. For one thing the CNN map which is referenced is a strategic map, of Turkey's grand design. Not a current "battle map" which the gif appears to be, showing actual events as of October 17, which will change when the so called cease fire is over (what cease fire, there is still shooting and shelling going on per news reports from the front). This map which Steve linked to was dated Oct 14, 4 days after his post and three days older than the gif It may be a RS but how accurate is it. It doesn't appear to be current, hence accurate.As regards the source of Southern Front. Who knows. I watched the Videos at the site and one is apparently from RT. Is this an RT site?Idon't know. Maybe someone with investigative skills can cypher that. The real question is how current and accurate is the gif. Currently dated Oct 17, versus the RS sources which are historic.Oldperson (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "As far as I can tell their 17th map does not match our map for the 17th." Oh, I'll be more than happy to compare my map to yours. Sorry, it seems as though you may have linked it somewhere previously, but I can't see it anywhere. Is it just the Syrian war map from the article on the Syrian civil war? Anyhow, could you just send a link and I'll be more han happy to sort out any differences.  Nate Hooper (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that your reply is to me. In any event this is the Oct 17 map from Southern Front and this is the Oct 14 Map from CNNOldperson (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I included you because you said "The real question is how current and accurate is the gif. Currently dated Oct 17, versus the RS sources which are historic." So I was just inquiring to see which RS sources you meant specifically. Are those the ones you meant? Others have been saying SF is not the most reliable, to be fair, this is true. It's not a major problem if a map disagrees to some extent with South Front, but it is a source I use because they sometimes have specific claims which are backed by evidence. It is useful in those cases. Nate Hooper (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Guys, to try to resolve the problem, I can do two things.
 * 1. Check the map that Slatersteven has mentioned, after I find out what it is, and
 * 2. After every daily frame, I'll add the sources in the talk page (or it might be called "discussion" in wikimedia files) of the gif which lists the sources I use for the update? Then you can all check them yourself and keep me honest. Does that sound reasonable? Nate Hooper (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that there are RS out there producing situation maps I do not see why we do not use one of those, and only one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post in the section below. Really, what objection did you have with my compromise in point 2? Using only one source / map is bad because not all of them include every little detail needed for these maps. They often just have general claims about large towns or areas being taken, rather than the exact towns taken, which is what I need for the map to be as accurate as possible. But okay, I'll do whatever you say in order to get my map back. Which RS map should I use which has the detail I need and which is updated on a daily basis? Nate Hooper (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And any such claim, would be just that...a claim. If RS do not consider it relevant or credible neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay. We are in utter agreement. Now can you please just tell me what RS map I am allowed to use? Nate Hooper (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that as far as I can see their is no one authoritative map. We have this [] this [] this []. There are also regular maps published by news media. But (as I said) they do not seem to really agree on the front lines.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my point. Look, Slatersteven, you seem like a reasonable guy. Surely you see the predicament I'm in. You say I need one RS source, then you acknowledge that there is no one authoritative map. So you see the impossible position I am in to make something acceptable to you? Again, I'm just trying to find some solution that will make you happy. Howabout this? I'll pitch my original idea but I'll make a few changes. I'll stick with liveuamaps and livemaps only as my source (I won't even look at South Front), however, I'll check each claim they make (is there photo evidence? Does another source say the same thing?) And I'll only change a dot's colour if to both of those, the answer is "yes?." I solve the multiple sources problem because the additional source is only acting as a backup which ensures that I will play it safe with the map and I solve the unreliability problem too? Nate Hooper (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But wp:synth forbids us from taking information form separate sources and drawing out own conclusions. And no it is not acceptable for you to "check any claim they make", we do not second guess the accuracy of sources. Either we stick with one RS and use that unchallenged or we do not do it. We are not in the business of original research.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "But wp:synth forbids us from taking information form separate sources and drawing out own conclusions." The rule states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I am not doing that. I am reaching a conclusion reached by both the sources. "Either we stick with one RS and use that unchallenged or we do not do it." Okay, we'll stick with livemaps then. I'm starting to get the feeling that there is nothing I can do to make you happy. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If both sources agree why wold you need to "check each claim they make (is there photo evidence? Does another source say the same thing?) " and against what? That is the very definition of combining sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll only look at livemaps (which is reliable, just look at the research they put into their maps - even the map itself is full of sources). I won't check any other souces, only livemaps and nothing else. This entire exchange has been
 * You: You have to do A
 * me: Okay, I'll do it, perfectly willing to make any compromises
 * You: You can't do that, you have to do B
 * me: Okay, I'll do that instead
 * You: You can't... etc

Please Slatersteven, I guess it's no secret that both of us are getting annoyed at each other... I just want to speak to you man to man. This is perhaps the question I should have asked you at the start. Is there any hope (in a hypothetically perfect universe) of me ever doing anything to make you happy enough for my gif to be shown? Nate Hooper (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, I will make my final argument: I have said much in this thread, but would like to make a single retraction, and that is the fact that it has taken place here at all, rather than the discussion page of the gif itself. In actual fact, I cannot make any promises about which sources are used and how they will be used, because the file is editable by anyone - I do not own it. That is the nature of wikimedia files. When I see that there is a mistake in, say, the Syrian war map, I do not attempt to have it removed from the main Syrian war page. I simply upload my own file which updates it or rectifies the problems I see, and I may or may not include my source in the update. That is the attitude we should have. If my... no, not "my"... THE gif is not in line with an RS source? Well the same fact can be said for the Syria map or the green and red map in this very page. Should both of those be deleted from various pages too? They use multiple sources since they are updated by many users on a regular basis, are they not? That is the very nature of wikimedia files. If the final argument of my opponent is upheld then should they be deleted from the various pages they are on? Should not the red and green map in this page be deleted? Could not the same arguments be levied against them? Is any Wikipedia page ver allowed to display maps? The myth that I own the file is just that, a myth. A few hours ago, a man came to my profile and expressed an interest in making revisions on the gif. He might see fit to revise it some time in the next few days. Why do I say this? I say it to show that it is just like any other file on any other page. It is editable by all and it belongs to all us. It is not the gif which is on trial and whether it belongs here, it is all maps and gifs and their placement on many more pages which is on trial. When you argue against the gif and its placement being here on this page... you argue against them too.

I rest my case.
 * *pans the jury

Now I tagged a bunch of you, is there some kind of voting system or some other way of deciding this that one of you can organize? Because that would be helpful. And just to clarify, all the stuff I said to SlaterSteven before still holds for the individual updates on the gif. I'm just finishing with a more fundamental level of argument that applies to its placement. "File" vs "most recent edit" if you will. Anyway, I'll leave you all to the judging or voting or however you do this. Nate Hooper (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a voting system. It is called consensus. I agree with your consensus, point well made. If we can't accept one, then we can't accept any.
 * So I vote.

* Accept the gif. Reasons stated above.Oldperson (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reject For the reasons already stated, as to any new maps...the same arguments apply. If it uses more then one source its Syntheses. If it is how you "editorialize" the sources it OR. Moreover October is not over yet, until it is the map is trying to predict the future.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What reasons? You have not given a single reason that I have been unable to refute. Why are you not going to this page and removing the map? Your same arguments apply. Why have you not removed this map: ?
 * You are misinterpreting the rule. I've quoted the rule you claim to be using in order show that no violation is taking place.
 * I've used the logic that it undermines every map, yet there they are. They remain. This shows that I am right.
 * 1. Quote the rule to show how the gif breaks it, do not reference it.
 * 2. Tell my why the other maps don't break it but mine does OR the reason why you are not removing those maps.
 * If you cannot do both of these things in 12 hours, I'm putting the gif back up.

"October is not over yet, until it is the map is trying to predict the future." What are you on about? Nate Hooper (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have said I have made my arguments (and no I do not agree you have refuted them) so there is no point in me reiterating them. Other then to ask user's to read wp:v wp:synyth and wp:or. As to what I, mean by October is not over yet, we cannot say this was the situation in October until we know what the situation for (or at the end of) October was. This is what I mean about wp:v at any point in October that map is going to be wrong (and maybe already, as it does not match up with this [].Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You are the other two where were initially opposed to it being there. The others were on my side. Because of this, can I please get one of you to adjudicate? Because of your previous positions I think it would be most appropriate? Please read the whole thread, look at my arguments and Steven's and make some statement to resolve this? The statement should be one of the following: A: Steven is right and there is nothing I can do to make the map good. Even though I am insisting that I'll only use one source, it can never be good B: Both are correct to some extent, Steven is right that the map is bad HOWEVER, if I do use one source in future edits, it is redeemable. It can go back up when I update it and do the last thing he requested. C: I am right fully right

I hope you will pick B. Nate Hooper (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I pick D, I want a static "current situation" map, not the sourcing headache of a day-by-day gif. No source is ever going to support that gif, we will need to wait for secondary review of the conflict after it is over for something like that to be appropriate. A current situation map, though, is informative and necessary and while still technically SYNTH, in my opinion defensible. --Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I responded below, but I'll respond here too. I am very happy with this compromise. I really appreciate that you have come up with an amicable solution that should please all parties. After this long discussion, it is so refreshing to see. Perhaps we should wait for one or two others to confirm that this is a good way to go? Nate Hooper (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I dislike ultimatums - I don't edit Wikipedia every day, with that said, the question isn't whether you only use one source; the question is which source? Because the ones that were being used when I took the map down were deeply dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

colour used
The map implies that Assad's forces are occupying SDF territory although that is not true. There is a current alliance between the SDF and SAA and SDF law still applies i reccomend changing the Red to an orange similar to how it is shows on Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SDF and SAA have joint military control of areas, and SDC has political control, so I agree, it makes no sense to show it as solely SAA territory. Orange would be the best solution, as that is what is used on our own SCW map for SAA-SDF areas. -Thespündragon 00:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pali Upadhyay (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work to change it to orange. It might take a few days though. Nate Hooper (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just updated it with the orange added. For what it's worth, I do agree, having the orange colour is definitely a good way to make the situation in certain areas more clear. 211.30.105.112 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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


 * This ethnic cleansing/displacement thing is appearing a lot in commentaries, but I'm not sure what to do with it. A section on impact on population / demographics? The article is missing that aspect. --Cold Season (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a section on war crimes, that is what this would be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. This needs to be included. — comrade  waddie96 ★ (talk)  17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I see, most sources (like above) as of now take the cautious stance that the current situation may pave the way to ethnic cleansing. Therefore my suggestion. --Cold Season (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Russian deployment
Update with news today including Russia in infobox. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

lede
Is way to long, it should be a few paragraphs. It needs trimming of all the detail.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, first of all the second paragraph has no citations and should be taken out. Also the paragraph related to ISIS prisoners (#5) and reactions (#6) should be taken out since they are not a direct part of the events in the operation but backlash. KasimMejia (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede does not have to have cites, it is only supposed to summarize the body of the article (all of which should already be cited).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking the last two paragraphs about the cease-fire can be combined and summarized. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a start. Anyone disagree?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, also don't think it'll be enough so you can take out 5th and 6th paragraphs too. KasimMejia (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


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


 * I object, this is important and relevant information.Oldperson (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree I have just made one change that seems to be agreed upon.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


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


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

So we are agreed that the controversies section can be shortened?Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. KasimMejia (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "The Second Battle of Ras Al Ain" article from the see also section
KasimMejia has removed the link to the Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) from the See Also section on this page, without discussion. He has also nominated it for deletion. This is probably the main battle of the entire operation, so its clearly relevant to this page. I would ask for a consensus that it is put back in the see also section. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support adding back the link. The Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) article definitely needs some fixing, but that's no reason to not include it. Here's the revision where it's removed, for context: . David O. Johnson (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks David O. Johnson - any other opinions, one way or the other? Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we have two votes to have it reinclueded, and no votes for it to be removed, so I will take that as a consensus and put the link back in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox status bloated
There is too much information here similar to the lede. Considering taking out comment #2 about SAA fighting, since didn't have a big impact on the conflict. Only 5 SAA killed per SOHR. Also consider taking out comment #6 about Russian Patrol, again not a significant development. And finally consider merging comment #4 and #5 about ceasefires. In total there'll be 4 comments. 1st one Turkish gains, 2nd town SAA has entered. 3rd governorates US withdrew. and 4th ceasefire. Any objections? KasimMejia (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not know what is and is not significant until its all over. Anything in that infobox could change in an hours time.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've condensed the two SAA/Russian tags under the ongoing section of the infobox to just link to a separate article on the Russo-Syrian-Turkish deal in Northern Syria. TBH, though, it is still too long and detailed. But, as the editor above me stated, we can't know what is significant until it's already in the past. Goodposts (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I must be missing something
I do not understand why Kasim deleted the paragraph here he says in his summary that it is unverifiable article. I checked the article and it's citation and do not at all agree with his assessment. Please clarify, before I revertOldperson (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know the answer to this question. Goodposts (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Status of the offensive
Isn't this operation already over after the two ceasefires with Russia and the US? In addition, it was mentioned after the 2019 Sochi agreement that this agreement would "end Turkish military operations in Syria". To me it looks similar to the 2018 Sochi agreement also between Turkey & Russia. Maybe it is an idea to create a separate article about the new agreement so we can go into detail about this new deal and finish this article up. Turkey will only resume the operation if Russia does not fulfill it's promises made in the agreement, so we can always reopen this article as a phase 2 if necessary. I Know I&#39;m Not Alone (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, operation stopped since 17 Oct per Turkish statement. It has the possibility to resume on 29 Oct 6pm local time unless withdrawal completed or ceasefire not extended. KasimMejia (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree? The operation didn't stop. It does stop when Turkish Defence Ministry announce 'it stopped'. Please don't bring new rules, check other articles of Turkish operations in Syria. Olive Branch didn't stopped, it's still ongoing for example. Beshogur (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Turkish Def Min said operation is paused on 17 Oct Turkish Def Min also says operation can continue if withdrawal not completed, so on 29 Oct has the possibility to restart. KasimMejia (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean operation has finished yet. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What does mean the operation has finished then? KasimMejia (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When it's declared by Turkey as 'the operation is finished'. Also the clashes are still going on. Beshogur (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its halted, but the Turks have made it clear that if they do not get what they want when they want it it will start up again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The operation is on hold, not over, as per Turkey itself. Plus, fighting is still going on, although sporadically at the moment. In any case, until they say its over, or 3rd party sources report it, the operation is still very much ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And why on earth is the status changed to "Turkish victory"? 51.174.7.31 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They did almost get what they wanted. Except (of course) fighting still seems to be going on, so its not over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Operation declared over by Turkey, though I agree clashes ongoing, however clashes are still going between SDF and Turkey in Operation Euphrates Shield area too. I assume the Operation is over, not the conflict. KasimMejia (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither you or Turkey are an RS, RS say there is still fighting ergo its not over according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be Turkish victory? KasimMejia (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there is still fighting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * YPG lost huge amount of territory directly to Turkey, and lot of areas to SAA. This should be definitive Turkish victory. Either you put "SDF victory", which is impossible, "stalemate" which isn't the case right now, or "Turkish victory", choice is yours. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or we leave it until the fighting is over, and we see who gained the most (right now it seems to be the Assad regime, who have regained control of far more territory then Turkey has taken). Also it depends on how you define huge.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Assad gaining his own country a victory? It could be ridiculous by putting "SAA victory" while the battle was between Turkey and SDF. SDF is clearly loser of this operation. Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because he has regained control of territory he had lost to rebels or ISIS, you do understand how civil wars work? I agree the SDF were the losers, what does SDF stand for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Previous consensus in this page in particular stated that the infobox should use the name used in reliable sources,(as multiple organizations are known by multiple names) and here we have two citations for the Northeast Syrian Admin. being the belligerent. If we change it to Rojava, we should have reliable sources describing that as the belligerent. An alternative solution to solve the problem of the long name would be the officially used short-form name, North and East Syria, not requiring changing the sources. We could also use the military of the region as used in the pages of the war against ISIL, the Syrian Democratic Forces, grabbing sources from elsewhere in the article.-Thespündragon 23:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the common name?Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using the most commonly cited name. 51.174.7.31 (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia's policy, the most commonly cited name is the one we use. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose the only question remaining is whether or not there is a "local" common name. Thespoondragon's concern appears to be that when referring to this specific conflict, sources are apparently using the NES name (I've yet to check, though). However, many discussions at Talk:Rojava found that Rojava is the common name, not NES/AANES. I'd personally like to think that this means that we should be calling it "Rojava" on other articles, too (including this one). Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2019
The sources provided in section “ result “ do not mention that 4220 kilometers squares have been captured by turkey in its recent operation. Indeed according to turkey itself, the whole area captured in operation peace spring has been 2200 km squares.

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

The figure 4220 possibly includes the whole area occupied by turkey such as “Afrin “ and “ Jarablus “ and “ al- bab” and other areas which had been occupied  by turkey before operation “ peace spring “. Soran8552002 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehm? The source says, "Şu ana kadar bölgede kontrolümüze geçen alan büyüklüğü 4 bin 220 kilometrekareye ulaştı", Erdogan's own words. Beshogur (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need an independent third party RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look anything to discuss. Beshogur (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes there does, we are saying that a claim made by the Turkish president is true, if it is true third party RS would have repeated it as a fact, not an attributed claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * SOHR provided their own figure. Inserted both figures and attributed both claims. When there are conflicting claims we don't present one over the other as factual. Again, as per Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, we present all sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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