Talk:Operation Olive Branch

Why is this still ongoing?
The insurgency is ongoing and has its own page. The operation however is already finished a long time ago. Needbrains (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Turkish military has stated that the operation is still ongoing after the main combat phase was concluded, presumably because they consider the counter-insurgency phase as part of Olive Branch. Applodion (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of that. source? Needbrains (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This was discussed previously. See for examaple these pro-Turkish sources "Turkey's ongoing Operation Olive Branch", "Turkish army chief inspects 'Olive Branch' troops in border province of Hatay", "1,028 terrorists 'neutralized' in Turkey's Afrin operation" written after main combat had ended yet referring to the operation as "ongoing". Applodion (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely close this article and operation for several reasons. First, the SDF insurgency in the Afrin region seems to have ended (at the moment) with the last insurgent attack against pro-Turkish forces being recorded on 9 August 2019 . After that, only one more incident took place, the mortar attack at Azaz mid-October that killed two Turkish soldiers (which seems to have been more in retaliation for Operation Peace Spring). Second, Turkey has not been making any more updates on the results of the Olive Branch operation since the end of April 2019, with the last report on the number of "terrorists" neutralized in Olive Branch being on 29 April 2019 . Third, SOHR (the most authoritative source on activities in Syria) reported an Afrin insurgent attack for the last time on 5 August as well . Nothing since then. Fourth, in recent months, Turkish sources have generally referred to Olive Branch in the past tense. So, my proposal is to close the operation and insurgency articles with the end date being 9 August 2019 (last recorded insurgent attack), while leaving a note that after that one more attack took place on 11 October 2019 (the Azaz mortar attack). EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this operation should marked as over, as the Turkish military seems to no longer consider it ongoing. It should be noted, however, that the insurgency is ongoing; minor attacks still take place (i. e., , , ). Applodion (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, will think something up. EkoGraf (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Operation Olive Branch → Turkish military operation in Afrin – WP:POVTITLE; should go with a WP:DESCRIPDIS like 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria; the current version is a propagandist title that ignores the perspective of the Kurds and their allies. It would be like renaming the Iraq War article to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this has been a code-name for the offensive and the common name used throughout the offensive. You can see it by typing that on Google, you'll get over 26 million results. Opposing it or not, it was used by everyone. Plus, this is not the only "Operation ..." article on Wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as in contrast to a full-scale war like the Iraq War, this was a campaign during a conflict. It actually quite common for such campaigns to be named after the code-name, both on wikipedia and in academic literature. In addition, as Beshogur said, "Operation Olive Branch" is by far the most commonly used name. Applodion (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is clearly a POV name, bordering on propaganda. A description is more neutral and objective. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per NPOV. look all operation names of Benny Gantz in infobox, due pov we do not use that.Shadow4dark (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is the COMMONNAME by far, No valid reason has been presented for a move thus far. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Operation Olive branch is the wrong name for a Turkish military operation of Afrin, it is a Turkish military operation in Afrin and it would be fair to mention it this way. If the closing admin disagrees, a redirect with the proposed name would to it, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support For starters "Operation Olive Branch" was only the initial fighting. As an example Operation Barbarossa is a specific timeline you wouldn't call the entirety of the Eastern Front, "Operation Barbarossa". Vallee01 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is factually wrong. The ongoing occupation is still regarded as "Operation Olive Branch" by the Turkish military. (See the sources mentioned in the "Why is this still ongoing?" section above) Applodion (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, shorter and simpler, and matches with other Turkish Operation names in Syria (e.g Euphrates Shield, Spring Shield). Turkish military operation in Afrin is not even specific. Why is it Afrin? Could it not be Northwestern Syria or Afrin District? What does Afrin refer to exactly? Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The new suggested title conflicts with Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) which is another Turkish military operation. The current title helps distinguish the two. Jerm (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is in favor of "Operation Olive Branch". GGT's google scholar results show that it is the WP:COMMONNAME among reliable sources. TataofTata is right that this is the Turkish name for the operation, hence presents their POV, but Bondegezou showed there is ample precedence on wikipedia for using "Operation X" as titles. (non-admin closure) VR talk 00:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Operation Olive Branch → 2018 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria – Current title violates WP:POVTITLE as it is a purely Turkish point of view on the offensives. Nor does Turkey's odd choices of operation names properly describe or title the events for readers to grasp what is happening. With the developments of a potential future offensive again, the convoluted operation names potentially hides away the broader occupation. So I propose a consistent naming structure for the current Turkish occupation and offensives/invasions that have taken place to better fulfil WP:CRITERIA:


 * Turkish occupation of northern Syria
 * Operation Euphrates Shield > ---> 2016 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria
 * Operation Olive Branch ---> 2018 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria
 * 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Note: Turkey's president in 2019 threatened to flood Europe with refugees if European leaders/nations continued to call Turkey's offensives as an invasion hence some sources trying to be politically correct may be used as supposed reference to the current title, but this threat should be factored in to avoid the bias. TataofTata (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to Afrin offensive or 2018 Afrin offensive instead as it is both sufficiently descriptive and is the most commonly used name for the operation. The scope of this article and the existence of a separate Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) article present a problem since Operation Olive Branch is the name for the January–March 2018 Afrin offensive. Operation Olive Branch ended with the capture of Afrin; the following insurgency was not part of the named operation. Lightspecs (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, however my objective was to keep the structure in line with Turkey's other offensives for a better encyclopedia. What about 2018 Turkish Afrin offensive? --TataofTata (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: weak reasonings above. Per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * "afrin offensive" (16,000 results)
 * "operation olive branch" (72,200 results).
 * "olive branch operation" (56,300 results)
 * "afrin invasion" (2,990 results)
 * Beshogur (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of these results where "Operation Olive Branch" is the main term come from Turkish sources. "Afrin offensive" is the most common term used in international media, with "Olive Branch" being mentioned as Turkey's name in quotes. Lightspecs (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could show others without any quotations mark: BBC, Reuters, AJ. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The al-Jazeera article referred to "Turkey's operation in Syria's Afrin" and the "Afrin offensive" before mentioning Operation Olive Branch (and adding "so-called" before it).


 * In most Reuters articles on the operation, "Afrin offensive" is used in both the title and within the body without any qualifiers, while references to "Operation Olive Branch" usually mention that it's Turkey's name, often with quotes around it. Likewise for BBC (1, 2). Lightspecs (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the other names such as "Afrin offensive/operation", in Turkish there are alternate names such as "Afrin harekatı" or "Afrin operasyonu". But it's totally misleading. Is it about Afrin area(?), the town(?). The search results are here, "Afrin offensive" gives me 16,400 results. So we should stick on common name. Also 20 BBC mentions against  8; same goes for Reuters. If you look carefully, most of those are not in quotes, and we can see that it's used as a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Beshogur. It is the commonly used name, including by international media and researchers. Even pro-Kurdish sources, like Ed Nash (author of Kurdish Armour against ISIS and YPG veteran), use the name. The title also does not violate WP:POVTITLE any more than any other "Operation X" title (though pro-Kurdish sources usually add something about the name by cynical, but such comments are often also applied to other names for operations in other conflicts). Applodion (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not use "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq do we, so it clearly violates WP:POVTITLE on that basis. The operation name of the offensive is certainly a POV of the Turkish side. It's also going to be highlighted in articles to quote what turkey calls its offensive so these kind of skewed results is certainty a manipulative argument. I found so many out of context and Turkish sources in his results, nearly every Turkish media outlet is there and they regularly release articles on these topics so take with a grain of salt. --TataofTata (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia has multiple articles called "Operation something", e.g. Operation Market Garden, Operation Entebbe, Operation Mincemeat etc. These Operation names represent one side's perspective, yet I see no objections to them, so I don't think there's any general injunction against the form "Operation something". Articles using that name focus on the specific military operations concerned rather than broader issues, and that distinction may be something to think about here. We should be guided by what reliable sources say, as per WP:COMMONNAME -- and we do there need to take into account what sources from different perspectives say. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not used because "Iraq War" and "2003 invasion" have become more commonly used, especially in academia (among other reasons, the war and invasion cannot be named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" because each contingent involved in the coalition used its own "Operation X" name such as Operation Telic). Again, contrast this to "Operation Olive Branch" which even pro-SDF sources use. Applodion (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are hardly similar and actually backs me up. A hostage rescue operation is not comparable, nor is a deception operation during war time.. These are respectfully operations, same as other second world war operations that took place. Look at Saar Offensive or 1939–1940 Winter Offensive for example.
 * I will not add any further as I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings, but there's a few things to factor here. "Operation Olive Branch" is a non-neutral title even if they do not admit. Secondly there is no solid grounds to claim it's more common, I'm sure the sources Beshogur believes I do not take seriously while alternatively sources for example from the US White House statement which stated "...Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria.." he chooses to ignore (these are actual reliable sources). "even pro-SDF sources use" is just speculating, same as claiming turkish occupied areas are self-governed or military "intervention" is a better term than offensive. Objectively to be ambiguous IMO.
 * WP:CRITERIA - "In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains...Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency." Simply for a better encyclopedia on the whole topic. --TataofTata (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So in wikipedia, we should move everything accordingly to the white house? Also the term operation is not a pov title. See reactions sections, almost every country calls it "operation". If you're against the name "Olive Branch". That's something else. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Operation Olive Branch" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS. Google Scholar results are very clear: 614 results for Operation Olive Branch (and a further 115 for "Olive Branch Operation") vs. 52 results for Afrin offensive (86 for "invasion of Afrin"). WP:POVTITLE clearly allows the use of such names in such circumstances, and this isn't even a POV title, it's just a codename. If the bulk of the English-language scholarship on this issue is from Turkey, that's also tough luck - it doesn't change the way we should be approaching this per policy. --GGT (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar does not count what sources calls the offensive by what title or such, it simply counts the hits it finds. That means every source referring to an invasion, offensive, military attack, etc would end up quoting Turkey's codename of the offensive at least once and as you admit the bulk of the results are coming from Turkey, a place that threatened the EU with refugees if they called it an invasion and also locks up academics for the same reasons. It's fair to say they are not so reliable, especially when looking at it and finding stuff like: "Ankara initiated the Operation Olive Branch together with the Free Syrian Army against ISIS and PKK/YPG in Afrin of Syria". Or finding a play by Ewan MacColl called "Operation Olive Branch" in 1947.
 * Also I suggest if you're going to state the obvious such as "it's just a codename" you should be specific and state that it's devised by Turkey so as to not be presenting incomplete or half-truths. That is where a point of view originates from, it's a codename that Turkey named its offensive that ultimately resulted in taking over Afrin we should be cautious in calling an invasion/offensive by its codename for obvious reasons. Vague google results are not WP:COMMONNAME, major news outlets are:
 * Associated Press, Turkey says no turning back from offensive in Syria -
 * BBC, Syria offensive: Turkish troops 'capture villages' in Afrin - BBC News -
 * The Guardian, Turkey primed to start offensive against US-backed Kurds in Syria | Turkey | The Guardian -
 * CNN, Tillerson 'concerned' at Turkey's Syria offensive - CNN -
 * --TataofTata (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note that 1) the proposer replying to each and every argument in the discussion with multiple paragraphs is hardly constructive 2) the fact that you followed my edits after I opposed your RM and reverted me on Kars Province, an article which you had never previously edited, is unacceptable, bordering wikihounding. Please don't do that again, not to me, not to any other participants in this discussion. --GGT (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I've not been replying to everything, that's not untrue. This is a somewhat complex topic and a clarification to your half-true statement which everyone has a right to hear out and I'm in no way being unconstructive when it was to dismiss my point in a misguided way. If what you said was bulletproof I wouldn't have much to say and I'd probably change my opinion too, especially if it's more than just another attempt at using vague google results.
 * 2) I reverted you on Kars Province because you removed Kurdish and Armenian versions of the province name. I follow many Kurdish and Armenian towns and areas so it in my watch list. I think you're making it out to be something that it's clearly not. Please just stay on topic and do not try and focus on the user here. I also suggest not to go around doing that. --TataofTata (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see a consensus emerging to support changing the article name., have you considered adding some material to the article about the language used and, for example, stuff like: ? That would be a way of acknowledging these issues. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply wanted to improve the structure of all these offensives in a more readable and common known format, not by Turkey's codename. It may be worth notifying other users who previously voted in the last vote, as there are already two which have been involved already here? As for mentioning what Erdogan said, yes that would be good. There is also already the section on 'Restrictions of free expression and arrests in Turkey'. --TataofTata (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible resolution regarding infobox losses
Seeing as you are (rightfully) still dissatisfied with the infobox losses, and we didn't find a common ground during our last discussion, I want to offer another possible resolution to this dispute. How about we apply the Russian invasion of Ukraine style? Namely, we remove all loss claims from the infobox. Then, we add the note "Reports vary widely, see § Casualties for details." with a link to the casualty section, where all loss estimates are properly explained and every reader can carefully judge which claim is most trustworthy. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Its just that SOHR sources dont match up with the infobox
 * https://www.syriahr.com/en/121535/ https://www.syriahr.com/en/136684/ - "616 FSA killed" The pages doesnt mention 616 FSA killed at all
 * https://www.syriahr.com/en/132599/ https://www.syriahr.com/en/136684/ - "96 TAF killed" The pages doesnt mention 96 TAF killed at all TRAVERA1 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, "terorsehitleri" is by far the most reliable source we have for TAF losses. It has recorded every single TAF kia since the 1970s, Including cause of death, place of death, place of birth, place where they were buried at, their rank, what level of training they have, age, unit name, pictures, name of their father, name of their mother, married or not, even places their names were given to... But in a past conversation you said Its unreliable because the owner of the site met with a deputy once. Thats like saying Trump meets with Putin, Putin says a number of his casualties in the war of X, and the claim becomes (American Claim) because Putin met Trump once.
 * SDF reports are highly unreliable, they outnumbered the TAF forces there by 2 times and killed 3/6 of turkish forces in the region, yet they somehow still lose.. TRAVERA1 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This SOHR article, when talking about the pro-Turkish KIA, states "698, the number of members of the Turkish forces and the rebel and Islamic factions including 85 Turkish soldiers". This means 613 dead SNA troops. The other article talks about three more being killed soon after, so it's 616 overall. The same kind of addition also happened for the other two articles regarding Turkish KIAs. Regarding "terorsehitleri", we can add their numbers, but only if the terorsehitleri articles actually mention the numbers in question. For instance, this terorsehitleri article mentions 72 dead Turkish soldiers in the Afrin area, but also includes part of the SDF insurgency in northern Syria in its timeframe. Either way, can't we just move this whole stuff out of the infobox and into the casualty section? All this confusion could be avoided by not having everything crammed into the infobox. Applodion (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * including 85 Turkish soldiers
 * There are thousands of Turkish and Turkmen soldiers in the FSA. It does not specifically say "Turkish soldiers from the Turkish Armed Forces". TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "mentions 72 dead Turkish soldiers in the Afrin area"
 * Thats about Operation Euphrates Shield, not Olive Branch. TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, we can endlessly discuss which sources are good or not (and the terorsehitleri source for 72 KIA does state that 72 soldiers were martyred in "Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın", i.e. Operation Olive Branch). I highly doubt that SOHR would call Turkmen fighters in the FSA "Turkish soldiers". Either way, this does not solve the issue. However, by moving this content out of the infobox, it can be presented more fairly. For instance, if you can find sources disputing the SDF's numbers, you could add such criticism as text in the section. These nuances are not possible in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "(and the terorsehitleri source for 72 KIA does state that 72 soldiers were martyred in "Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın", i.e. Operation Olive Branch"
 * What it actually says there is:
 * "Fırat Kalkanı Harekâtındaki 72 şehidimizin anısına ilk taarruz Hava Kuvvetlerimize ait 72 uçakla yapıldı. Kahraman Mehmetçik de Afrin bölgesine doğu, kuzey ve batı yönlerinden kara harekâtına başladı."
 * Translated:
 * "In memory of our 72 martyrs in Operation Euphrates Shield, the first attack was made with 72 aircraft belonging to our Air Force. The Heroic Turkish Soldier also started a land operation in the Afrin region from the east, north and west." TRAVERA1 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a different link than me? Or is there some hidden content I didn't see? I'm genuinely curious, as it clearly states that 72 soldiers died in Operation Olive Branch in the article in linked above: "Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, sosyal medya hesabından Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın 5. yılında şehit ve gazileri andı.Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, 20 Ocak 2018 tarihinde başlayan harekatın 5'inci yılı dolayısıyla açıklama yaptı.Harekatı başarıyla icra eden Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri personelini anan Bakanlık, açıklamada, "Canları pahasına mücadele eden, ülkemizin ve milletimizin huzuru ve güvenliği için gözünü kırpmadan şehadete yürüyen kahramanlarımıza Allah'tan rahmet, kahraman gazilerimize de sağlıklı, mutlu ve uzun ömürler diliyoruz" ifadelerini kullandı.Operasyonda 72 Askerimiz Şehit oldu.5 yılın özetini de inografik olarak sosyal medya hesabından paylaşan Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, 7 bin 314 teröristin etkisiz hale getirilirken, 2 bin kilometrekarelik alanın da güvenli hale getirildiğini kaydetti." Anyway, can we please move this stuff into the separate section? Applodion (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the picture in the link u sent TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was talking about the text. So this is odd. Which is it now, Olive Branch or Euphrates Shield? Applodion (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The man who wrote the article probably accidentally wrote it that way, 74 soldiers were actually killed in operation euphrates shield. The poster is also made by the national defense department. TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this makes sense, but it also illustrates how quickly these kinds of errors can pop up. Do you have a better article by terorsehitleri? And what do you think about my proposal of moving the losses out of the infobox? Applodion (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I need to repeat this again,
 * Terorsehitleri has every, single, turkish soldier killed by terror organizations as far as 1970 including their name, picture, place of death, date of death, cause of death, the place they were buried at, the last place they were serving in, their rank, their birth date, their birth place, name of father, name of mother, their level of education, their marital status, number of their children, background and the places their names were given to (like schools etc.) Including some civillians and teachers aswell.
 * Search up the dates olive branch was conducted (january-march 2018) and look at their cause of deaths, you will either see:
 * Suriye Afrin Operasyonunda...
 * Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri'nin Suriye'nin Afrin bölgesinde yürüttüğü 'Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nda...
 * or something in those lines.
 * Stack all of them up; 45.
 * If you want me to give you all of their names, i will. TRAVERA1 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are able to collect every single one of them with a proper source, we probably can add them. Applodion (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)