Talk:List of wars involving Turkey

Syrian civil war
Turkey gets an increasingly important role in the war, should be mentioned already here.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And in 2014, even more. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Kokkina's result
It was a staletmate, neither side gained anything. --FPSTurkey (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC) (Source: 1)

It is Greek Cypriot victory since, the immediate geographical result of the conflict in the Tylliria region was that the Kokkina enclave was effectively reduced to approximately 50-60% of its original size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Ottoman Empire, Sultanate of Rum and Seljuk Empire military history
What are your opinions on this. --FPSTurkey (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Avoid. Do it and the article will be unworkably long and full of vague and uncertain historical events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
This list-article is way away from neutrality. I can say with ease of mind that it involves not so very well-intended elements. The Republic of Turkey, since its foundation has been involved in only one operation that may be considered a war, in 1974 on Cyprus, other than a minor participation at the Korean War as part of the UN forces. The war against Taliban in Afghanistan etc have not involved Turkish troops because they were only sent there for a peace-keeping mission and had no casualties (excepting traffic accidents etc) because they were not involved in warfare. The list is introducing flags not known before like that of a not established state (project)and also fictional actors like "Tunceli Tribes" etc. These are all "not" NPOV edits and represent a tendency not to make a real contribution to Wikipedia but create propaganda links to articles, probably for nationalist motives. Therefore I added a POV chech request and expect participation from objective users. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we go by what similar "list of wars involving ...." articles for other countries, the basic criteria for inclusion would seem to be "list of military conflicts in which Turkish armed forces participated or which took place on Turkish territory". So the "which took place on Turkish territory" would mean that the Dersim rebellion should be there, and if there are Turkish armed forces on the ground in other countries as part of a conflict, then Turkish armed forces are participating in that conflict. Merely declaring war on someone or something would not count, I think - actual armed forces would have to be engaged in conflict with that someone or something in a meaningful way. But on some articles the criteria seems even looser. Are there REALLY Belgian armed forces engaged in active armed conflict with Islamic State? I doubt it. And some little countries like to puff themselves up by getting involved everywhere, even if their involvement is just a "peacekeeper" or two so that the main party involved can claim there is a "coalition".  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Turkish participation in Korea was not minor. They contributed with the fifth largest force, and also suffered huge casualties. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We could mention these other conflicts in the bottom section (like in my proposal, forget the Ottoman bit). Korea, Cyprus and the Independence War are probably the only ones being wars (and maybe the Kurdish conflict) --FPSTurkey (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far away from neutrality. It erases all defeats, and it says defeats are victories, or stalemates. It also includes the war that was before the turkish republic, to say that were the young turks victory, but fails to show WW1 and the balkan wars, just before that, that were also the young turks, but indisputable defeats those times. Since those were indisputable defeats, are not be seen. Defeats are to be totally hidden in this article for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think the mention of Afghan War or the Korean War is problematic, Turkey certainly participated in them. Even rebellions like Sheikh Said rebellion or Dersim Rebellion could be included, as they resemble a war: militants formed a group in an area, they gained control of towns, Turkish army is sent there and they had a fight. However, it would really be abusing the term, calling Turkey–PKK conflict a war. Still, considering the article to be actually List of military conflicts involving Turkey, and seeing The Troubles is mentioned in List of wars involving Great Britain and Basque conflict in List of wars involving Spain, I wouldn't object to their inclusion either. I still think the naming is problematic, but to change it, all other "List of wars involving ..." articles would need to changed.--Cfsenel (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Young Turks
We are not including anything before the Turkish War of Independence. FPSTurkey (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Soviets
Soviets never took a part in the independce war. They only gave armament support wich is listed in the article itself. Gala19000 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War
Turkey's Operations in the Syrian Civil War should be categorised as one: Turkish Military Involvement in the Syrian Civil War, with Opponents listed as ISIS, Rojava, Syria, PKK (disputed). The individual operations can be listed in the description or in the 'See Also' section at the bottom. Likewise Political Violence in Turkey 1976-1980 wasn't really a war as such and should similarly be categorised under 'See Also' rather than in the table. 91.85.36.77 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cyprus crisis (1955–64)

 * I am doing what you should have done a long time ago, starting a discussion about the addition you are trying to implement. Please first read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Then explain how you justify to include the Cyprus crisis from 1955 to 1964 among "wars involving Turkey". As far as the current sources show, Turkey's involvement is limited to the Battle of Tillyria. Do you have other sources showing that the Cyprus crisis was a "war" that Turkey was involved in?

And by the way: Please read WP:VANDALISM, specifically WP:NOTVANDALISM. The more than 20 reverts of your addition is neither vandalism nor "vamdaism". It is just editors disagreeing with your unexplained addition. --T*U (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You haven't received any concencus for removing well sourced material. Of course I have material that shows all the battles that as I have explained I indent to add. However first you need to stop vadnalize a case that you no nothign about, deleting well sourced material, and adding your POV, in order for me not to have to be starting all over again every time. When you add a battle of a war yourself involving Turkey, in the list of wars involving Turkey,you shouldn't be wondering if there was a war, or if there was any turkish involvement in it. You have admitted it yourself by adding itJazz1972 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (I have indented your posting for better readability.)
 * 1) Your remark that I haven't received any concencus for removing is rather ridiculous, given that your addition has been reverted more than 20 times. So where is your consensus to add it?
 * 2) Yes, I have "admitted" the Turkish military involvement of the Battle of Tillyria, which is well sourced. What I have asked you to do, is to show sources that the Cyprus crisis in the period from 1955 to 1964 was a war that Turkey was involved in. More precisely: Unless you can show that there was Turkish military involvement during the nine year period before the Battle of Tillyria, it does not make sense to list the Cyprus crisis as a "war involving Turkey".
 * I do not participate in edit wars, so I have not reverted you. I intend, however, to start a WP:RFC about this in order to get more input and hopefully reach a clear consensus. --T*U (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It was being reverted endless times, by the same account using not even a nickname but an ip address. Rather ridiculus is offencive and it shows a lack of respect. There were extensive discussions on the matter, years of discussions I would say. One can not expect to get any serious NPOV articles if he doesn't get any serious users to add NPOV information that are well knowledgeable on the subject that are writing about. Of course previously all the battles were added many times, by serious NPOV users, but were obvsiously deleted by very poor POV users. Now they are going to be added again all back. Of course this will take some good amount time and a good amount of work, if the related articles are going to be done in an NPOV and serious way. Now if you are knowledgeable on the subject we can discuss it extesnively. If you are not though, which I am certain that you are not, it wil be better to stay out of this, since the related articles are already rated as junk because of the very poor POV users deleting all the well sourced NPOV information and adding their very poor POV versions, and the serious NPOV users have already the burden of having to come back and fix them.Jazz1972 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what are you talking about? You say there were extensive discussions on the matter, years of discussions I would say, but this has never been discussed on this talk page. You also say that previously all the battles were added many times, but I have studied the page history from the page was started in 2011 up till today, and there is not one single addition of any other battle from the period 1955 to 1964 than Tillyria/Kokkina/Erenköy. The only other thing that has been attempted, is the same addition that you try to make, about which there was an edit war in September 2014. That is all. No other battles mentioned. So I have to ask: 1) Where are the extensive (years of) discussions? 2) Which battles (all the battles) have been added (many times) when and where? And I repeat the questions you did not answer: 3) Where is your consensus to add the Cyprus crisis as a "war involving Turkey"? and 4) Can you give sources for Turkish military involvement before the battle of Tillyria? And I will add a more personal one: 5) How do you deduce that I am not knowledgeable on the subject? (On this one, you might get a surprice...) --T*U (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Check the talk pages and the history on the related articles and you will find a lot. In addition a person knowledgeable on the matter would have known the map before and after the battle that you have added as 50%, which is abviosyly not true. The concencus was already have been agreed in the related talk page of the article by all the users, that were editing at the time, a long time ago. This page just takes from the related articlesJazz1972 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a community project where editors are supposed to co-operate in order to create encyclopedic content. It would be much appreciated if you would give specific answers to my questions instead of just stating what amounts to "it is there somewhere". I will ask you one more time: 1) Please point specifically to at least one of the extensive discussions you claim have been about adding the Cyprus crisis (1955–1964) to the list of wars? 2) Please point specifically to at least one of the battles you claim have been added many times? 3) Please point specifically to where you claim to have had consensus for adding the Cyprus crisis as a "war involving Turkey"? 4) Please give at least one source for Turkish military involvement before the battle of Tillyria?
 * Please show respect to other editors by giving specific answers to these four questions. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Really???? You are part of the so called mediators that are with the poor POV users that are inciting hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture among Turkish Cypriots. You are insulting our inteligence by pretending to do so. I am not obliged to give you anything. I have already told you enough, that if you were an NPOV user you would have got it, that I knew from the start that you weren't. Don't lecture me about Wikipedia, since I know what is going on, in every section that I have any interest, of it. Others will follow and action will be taken. I have seen enough. Results section page, Cyprus Crisis article, to anyone interested, not youJazz1972 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You say I am not obliged to give you anything. That is true, you do not have any obligation towards me or any other specific editor. You do, however, have obligations against the Wikipedia community. You need to follow the Wikipedia guidelines about consensus, reliable sources and verifiability. It is therefore your obligation to give an answer at least to my question 3) and 4). Also: Your comment You are part of the so called mediators that are with the poor POV users that are inciting hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture among Turkish Cypriots is a personal attack that you might want to retract. Please read WP:NPA. --T*U (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you are now back after some six weeks of silence, going directly back into the edit war I have no intention of participating in. I will give you one last chance to answer my two main questions before I bring this further:
 * Please point specifically to where you claim to have had consensus for adding the Cyprus crisis as a "war involving Turkey"?
 * Please give at least one source for Turkish military involvement before the battle of Tillyria?
 * Thank you! --T*U (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is well know that Turkey was heavily involved in Cyprus during 55-59, especially through diplomacy. But more to that, Turkey organized and controlled TMT. Can we consider the fact that some military officers were part of a paramilitary group in Cyprus, as waging a "war" in Cyprus? I do not think so. But if the answer is "yes", then maybe we should state that the result was a victory for Turks as they got many constitutional priveleges at London-Zürich Agreements. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to get a third opinion on this, but no-one volunteered within the time limit of six days. Therefore I have now submitted a request for comments to get more input, see below. --T*U (talk) 16:20, 24 December 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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Flag of Kurdistan Workers' Party 1995.svg

RfC about the mention of the Cyprus crisis (1955–64) in this article
What should be included about the Cyprus crisis (1955–64) in this article, cf. discussion in section "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)" above?

Option 1: The Cyprus crisis (1955–64) should be included as an element of the table.

Option 2: Only the Battle of Tillyria should be included as an element of the table.

Option 3: Nothing should be mentioned in the table about the Cyprus crisis (1955–64).

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC). T*U (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 per discussion above. As long as the battle of Tillyria is the only military involvement by Turkey that is sourced, there is no reason to include anything more in this article. --T*U (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - but mention armed involvement in 1964 in parenthesis. I was leaning towards 2/3 - but then saw the list populated with all sorts of UN/NATO engagements. The TMT was a Turkish proxy force supplied and supported by Turkey, so Turkish involvement here was a bit heavier than just the airstrikes in 1964. Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So what now?
Two months of RfC and two !votes, rather disappointing! Anyway, it seems to indicate that this is in no way a burning issue. What do you think,, should we just leave it as it is, or should we try to work out some sort of common solution? If you look at the discussion at Talk:Cyprus crisis (1955–64), you will see an agreement between, and  that the current entry in this list, Cyprus crisis (1955–64), is not really a natural "unit" in the history of Cyprus. Without really having studied it closely, I tend to agree. Would you care to comment? --T*U (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Who were you disagreeing with to start with? I just ambled by necause of the RfC listing.... IMHO as long as we keep NATO engagements with very little Turkish participation - e.g. Libyan Civil War (2011) (Turkey sent a hospital ship) - I think funding/supplying (and intervening at the very end) in Cyprus is more significant. If we pare down the NATO ops (those with little Turkish involvement) - then I could be swayed in your direction.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The original disagreement was with currently blocked editor, whose main idea was to introduce an entry where Turkey did "lose", see discussion at Talk:List of wars involving Turkey. I have no strong feelings about all the NATO etc. entries, but I think that we should only include conflicts and "wars" where Turkish armed forces were more or less officially involved. --T*U (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)" is Original Research as I haven't seen any RS (books or chapters within books) dealing with such an entity. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , : I tend to agree that in reality there never existed any such thing as "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)". My suggestion has been to remove "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)" from the list and reinstate Battle of Tillyria, but I am absolutely willing to discuss addition of any other combat where TMT were involved and were supported by Turkish military. As for the NATO engagements, I do not know much about the Turkish involvement, but I think that official participation would normally qualify as "war involving Turkey". --T*U (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am OK with that. I would suggest removing Operation Deliberate Force (Turkey not mentioned in text, an aor offensive), Libyan Civil War (2011) (hospital ship and aid). I would also combine the last two (and maybe also Iraq) into one Syrian civil war entry.Icewhiz (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't commented on this sooner... first I'd say it depends what is meant by "wars", and what is meant by "involved". Although the article name is "list of wars...", it seems to include a number of things that are not wars, but would be called "conflicts" or other names. I'm not familiar with the usual practice in these types of articles so I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me to list specific battles, like the Battle of Tillyria, in a "list of wars". My question then was "what war (or war-like conflict) was the Battle of Tillyria part of?". What became quite clear to me was that "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)" is not an accepted historical concept, and that article needs to be renamed and reworked. Listing and describing the entire period as a "Greek Cypriot military and political victory" in a war with Turkey is not supported by any reliable source. Historians always distinguish between the pre-independence fighting of 1955–59 (Cyprus Emergency) and the constitutional collapse and fighting in 1963–64, which as far as I can tell is most often referred to by reliable sources as the "Cyprus conflict of 1963–64" or something very similar. I'd think that would be the most appropriate, so I proposed a new article by that name. I haven't had much time to work on it, but an article isn't a prerequisite to listing it here, as there are numerous reliable sources for it, and it could also link to for now.

As far as what "involved" means, again I'm not familiar with usual practice, but I'd think that direct involvement by a country's armed forces would be required, not simply providing arms, irregular fighters, or other support, so that would exclude the Cyprus Emergency from this list. On the other hand, British, Greek, and Turkish armed forces were stationed in Cyprus in 1963, and the UN force arrived in 1964. In terms of "belligerents" then, I'm not really sure what to say, i.e. whether Turkey was the only one to have "actively" participated in the crisis, or how that should best be described. It shouldn't give the impression as it does now that the Turkish military participated in a full-blown "war" with with Cyprus, in which it was "defeated"; it should be clear that there was limited direct involvement. --IamNotU (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Better add it as a turkish defeat, since the article is currently so biased in favor of Turkey, that reminds an ultra nationalist propaganda and people may look at it now, due to the war in Syria.Sunny Pensioner (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverts of January 25
Fyi, I've just reverted an unexplained restore of the page by to earlier revision by them in December. I also noticed another unexplained removal of material by, which I reverted. I don't really know what's going on in this article so maybe someone (?) can please correct me if I'm wrong, but there shouldn't be so many unexplained reverts here. Do we need some additional kind of dispute resolution? --IamNotU (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since August 2018 there has been an on-and-off edit war about the inclusion / non-inclusion of the Cyprus crisis (1955–64) as an entry in this list. I have tried the following: 1) Discussion in the talk page, see the section on this page; 2) Asking for a third opinion, where no-one volunteered; 3) An RfC, see the section  on this page, with minimal participation.
 * I still find the current entry problematic, and I hate to see edit warring "winning" discussions, but I feel I have spent too much time on this already, so for the moment I will leave the scene to others. --T*U (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Cyprus crisis of 1963–64
I've made some changes, considering the discussion above, substituting a link to "Cyprus crisis of 1963–64" as being the "war" or military conflict that Turkey was involved in. It's currently a redirect to the section of that name within the article "Cyprus intercommunal violence", which is a more general article on the subject, covering several distinct conflicts. The latter had been renamed to "Cyprus crisis (1955–64)", but has now been moved back to the old name.

I've also indicated that Turkey's official combat involvement in the crisis was limited to its intervention during the Battle of Tylliria. I'm not able to find any reliable sources that describe Turkey as being "defeated" in this battle. It could certainly be described that way for the Turkish Cypriots, who lost much of their ground and were forced into desperate conditions - some living in caves in Kokkina - after the supply blockade. However, it doesn't make sense to give the impression that Grivas and the National Guard "defeated" the Turkish air force, considering they had no aircraft... On the contrary, the Turkish air strikes put a swift end to their advance. The strikes were called off by Turkish Prime Minister Inonu after two days, when the UN Security council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire.

I think then that in terms of Turkey's military involvement (which seems to be the subject of this article), it's described by reliable sources as "ceasefire" and withdrawal, and not "defeat". The alternative would be for Wikipedia to make no distinction between the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey, and to say that Turkey was fully involved in the entire crisis due to its support of the TMT, and that any defeat of them was a defeat of Turkey in a military conflict. However, I think the same then would have to be said about Greece and its support of the National Guard etc., and that leads to a problem of indicating that there was a war, or war-like conflict, between Greece and Turkey in 1963–64, in which Turkey was defeated, which again doesn't seem to be supported by any reliable source. --IamNotU (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Libya intervention?
The Turkish president Erdogan said that Turkish troops have started to deploy in Libya tho its not confirmed till now (no statement from the military and no evidence from local sources). Tho its not a real intervention at the moment so it should not be on the list of ‘’wars involving Turkey’’. It makes more sense to keep it on the ‘’other armed conflicts involving Turkey’’. As Turkey has now only been selling military equipment to the GNA. The troops that are said to get deployed will train local and foreign fighter and give advice. They will not see any combat as for now Gal17928 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. Cinadon36 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving the recent operations from "wars"
Those aren't wars. If those are included, Operation Steel and Operation Sun should be included as well. Or the section title should be changed. Beshogur (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Result of operation spring shield
The result of Operation Spring Shield (which began from 27 February after the Balyun attack), is a clear ceasefire. Not an defeat for Turkey. Its a defeat for the rebel factions/hts as they lost ground before Turkey intervened. Turkey on the other hand hit the SAA very hard with its drone and artillery strikes and even allowed the rebels to push back the government forces in the south of Idlib. Turkey wanted for more than a month a ceasefire and thats what happened at the end. This can’t be called a defeat for Turkey Maskalaeuba (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a Turkish defeat. Syrian Forces recaptured Saraqib and Erdogan did not managed to revert all SAA gains, something he promised. All RS sources report a failure for Turkey, sources in Western media and in Turkey as well. Its a Defeat plain amd simple. We have many sources pointing that.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What are RS sources? Turkish Operation resulted in gains, except Saraqib was retaken. All sources except partisan sources refer it to as ceasefire. Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sine when do we remove/change content without reaching an consensus? After the Turkish intervention the FSA and other militant groups regained many villages and even took back some land in the south, and later they lost Saraqib. The result for Turkey was an ceasefire. Yiu also keep removing the new oage of Operation spring shield without any clear reason. Thats not how Wikipedia works Maskalaeuba (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Never knew Reuters,Irish Times were Partisan sources(Pro Assad maybe?). The fact the Op.failed and Syria won is present in most RS sources and Analysis. Unless you have more RS claiming a Turkish victory over Syria, I will change the outcome. If not it will stay as now.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Any opinions regarding this??Mr.User200 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This ceasefire avoided total TFSA/turkey collapse. Maybe it is a ceasefire for turkey but for SAA it is a tactical and strategic victory. Northwestern Syria offensive is a clear SAA victory. We can make separate battles in the list.Shadow4dark (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reuters calls ceasefire. Unluhisarcikli you state says: "The Syrian army was stopped, but not repelled. That is perhaps Turkey’s biggest loss". So can you tell me exactly how this is a defeat for Turkey and "strategic victory" for Assad if he was stopped? Either my English is broken or you are manipulating sources. Other two's are opinion pieces. I can put dozens of Turkish sources who would call Syrian government a loser but I don't. I have put The Guardian and BBC calling it ceasefire. Beshogur (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove operations
Let's remove Syria operations as war, instead put Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Any comment? We can make a section like "Wars and battles during the War of Independence". Beshogur (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Classification of US and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan as a defeat as opposed to a withdrawal
The main page for War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) does not state the outcome of the war as a defeat. The sources included on the page only refer to it as an exit and a withdrawal. A quick CTRL+F of the search "defeat" shows this. If Shadow4dark believes the sources state it as a defeat he should indicate which source. Also, for countries who played a bigger role than Turkey in Afghanistan, the war is not stated as a defeat on their "list of wars involving..." page. Turkey was not a major combatant and offered only non-combat troops to provide security in Kabul and the Wardak province. If an opponent leaves by their own free will and are not forced out militarily then its opponent cannot just claim military victory after seizing control of an uncontrolled territory. I cannot find anywhere that officially declares it as a defeat. Whereras, I can find many sources calling it a withdrawal. Other pages use the term withdrawal to describe the outcome of a war, why should this be any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.88.4 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First i mean the sources at the infobox all of them says it was a defeat, and Turkey was part of ISAF and Resolute Support Mission ending as a defeat acr sources at the infobox. Second at other pages it is also a defeat not a "withdrawal" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States Shadow4dark (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, Turkey was not at war with the Taliban. It is not appropriate to label it a defeat. Turkey provided only security and humanitarian aid. I see what you mean now by infobox, it states "Taliban victory". That does not change the fact they did not fight in the war and left willingly, not to mention they requested to provide security even while the Taliban would be in power. If it were that simple all wars would be any of the following: ongoing, victory, defeat. But that is not the case on Wikipedia. Where it makes sense you can use terms such as ceasefire, withdrawal and even "status quo ante bellum". In Turkey's case and quite frankly all of NATO's it makes sense to call it a withdrawal. Please cite a single source which states it as a defeat other than an infobox which is supposed to require sources. I have one of many here: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan. Also, you said on the US page it labels it a defeat but in List of wars involving the People's Republic of China it's labelled "ongoing" and in List of wars involving South Korea it's labelled "withdrawal". 5.151.88.4 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is whataboutism. This source says it is a NATO and western failure despite the billions and training missions by NATO. www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/17/why-did-the-afghan-army-disintegrate-so-quickly but I believe we should change to Taliban Victory / Turkish-allied defeat or NATO failure Shadow4dark (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think withdrawal makes the most sense but I will leave it for now until I have time to make a more compelling argument here. If you are willing to edit it to any of those which you suggested, I would agree with that. As they are far more accurate than defeat which implies militarily. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that is funny that Turkey's ally Azerbaijan and their war is not included in this. Yet somehow it is appropriate to represent Turkey as having fought in a war against the Taliban and lost militarily? Turkey provided military equipment and training to Azerbaijan and allegedly sent Turkish-backed Syrian fighters. Or are you going to say this is also whataboutism? From the given ways to describe the outcome of a war, it does not make sense to call it a defeat and not a withdrawal. Calling it a defeat seems to me to be very politically motivated. Withdrawal is mentioned 25 times in the main page, defeat is mentioned 6 times. And if you look into where defeat is mentioned, in context you can see they're not talking about the outcome of the war. Why is politics effecting the ways we describe outcomes of wars on Wikipedia? There are also almost 4x the amount of results on Google for 'afghanistan withdrawal' over 'afghanistan defeat'. Also George Bush in 2001 called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the Global War on Terror, I think it would also make sense to call it that here. On the Iraq War page it does not even mention victory/defeat in the result section, because that completely takes away the nuance of it. 5.151.88.2 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is on various lists like wars involving USA, Belgium, etc. Not an exception for us. Beshogur (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of my arguments stand. If your argument is just that it shows this on USA, Belgium pages too. Then look at South Korea's and China's pages, they don't show it as a defeat. Also ISAF's mission which Turkey provided only security forces in was from 2001-2014 according to NATO's own site, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_69366.htm. The withdrawal happened in 2021. It makes no sense to label it in such a way on Turkey's page. The table entry should either be changed to 2001-2014 and mention things like Turkey's role and US and allied withdrawal, or it should be changed to Global War on Terror. As Iraq is not even included anywhere here, they could both come under the same objective. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war should also be added. 5.151.88.2 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps check Resolute Support Mission. Beshogur (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's your point? I know Turkey withdrew its security forces (these were always non-combat) in 2021. What is your argument that it should be labelled defeat and not withdrawal, or that it should not come under the umbrella of Global War on Terror? You think if I go to those other pages and label it a defeat there too that I won't be challenged? 5.151.88.2 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Taliban "defeated" over 45 countries is absurd. Every argument against mine has just been "this news article states it as a defeat, therefore it is". The reality of the situation is Joe Biden *ordered* the withdrawal. The US and its allies did not succumb to defeat and were not forced to withdraw. It's literally just "status quo ante bellum". The military-industrial complex were *victorious* if anything, the US achieved its true objective (in my opinion). They spent trillions of dollars that went right back to them. In my opinion, it's no different than money laundering. This section of the page really needs updating. I suggest we update the outcome to "Withdrawal / Status quo ante bellum". We have the blue shade for a reason, and it should be used here. My second suggestion is to add Azerbaijan's 2020 war. I'd be really suprised if anyone fought me on this. Turkey is included as a belligerent on its main page. Lastly, the US and NATO were already having peace talks with the Taliban and Turkey-Qatar jointly offered the Taliban assistance at Kabul International Airport. You don't call it a "defeat" when both sides were engaged in peace talks and one side willingly withdraws and only until then did the other side come to the capital to take control of the then uncontrolled buildings.
 * Please engage more in discussion and cede where it makes sense, otherwise you don't deserve a say in this page's edits. The media is not the ultimate authority on anything and only a fool would take anything they say at face value. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should we add Azerbaijan if Turkey denied its involvement? Sounds absurd. Beshogur (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're kidding? Turkey also denies many things like the Armenian Genocide. Whether it's true or not, there's no chance of removing it from Wikipedia. There are sources for some of Turkey's support to Azerbaijan on the main page, some of those sources are annual reports from the European Parliament for example and not just news articles... Would you mind if I update the war outcome section now? Otherwise please provide more arguments against it. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. You can not edit withou consensus. Beshogur (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is why I asked you... can you read? 5.151.88.4 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)