Talk:Operation Olive Branch/Archive 1

Useable sources
Does the South Front (and maybe Agathocle de Syracuse, or known as Le Courier du Maghreb et de l'Orient) count as a reliable source? neoplan04 (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2018 (CET)

Requesting move
Can we move the page to Turkish military intervention in Syria (January 2018–present)? Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Should be changed to the above as by all indications this intervention is unlikely to just be against Afrin but also Manbij. Like the earlier Turkish intervention it has also been given a code name which is Operation Olive Branch which should be mentioned in the article and also used as a redirect to this article. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support Beshogur's proposal to move. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming article
The name of the article is confusing, as Turkey has been (directly) intervening militarily in Syria since 2016. Perhaps the name should be "Turkish military intervention in Afrin (January 2018–present)" Note that Afrin is the name for this area according to both the Syrian govt. and the DFNS. Zekelayla (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What not simply use "Operation Olive Branch" in that case? ChineseToTheBone (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 on renaming it "Operation Olive Branch", it's already the Turkish code name and it's the name in general use by followers of the war. Cepiolot (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Operation Olive Branch" is not a suitable article name since it is a propagandistic euphemism used by one side only. C.f. the the use ofGaza War (2008-2009) rather than "Operation Cast Lead": "The Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead (מִבְצָע עוֹפֶרֶת יְצוּקָה‎),[38] also known as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎)[39][40][41] and the Battle of al-Furqan (معركة الفرقان‎) by Hamas,[4]" I'm going to go ahead and rename the article to "Turkish_military_intervention_in_Afrin" since that is at least accurate. If anyone has a preferred name to propose, please feel free. Zekelayla (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Renaming to Operation Olive Branch. Should have never been changed. Reaper7 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Renaming to Operation Olive Branch. EkoGraf (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Manbij is WP:CRYSTAL
The presumed offensive against Manbij is WP:CRYSTAL and should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of language used in descriptions of parties involved in conflict
There have been some edits made, which seem to term the conflict as pro kurd and anti kurd. this isnt an appropriate distinction, the conflict and the language being used should be between the parties involved, using alternative references to the parties involved in the conflict itself, such has the PYD/YPG. labeling it as pro kurd or anti kurd, is misleading as there have been conflicts between the PYD and other Kurdish parties in Rojava itself. and there has been support for the Turkish side from Kurdish elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of Kurdish Nationalists who are in favor of a Turkish intervention/takeover. Zazas/Zazakis don't count as they don't consider themselves to be Kurds. ~ Prince of Kurdistan

Adding PKK and ISIL to infobox
Turkey claims they're also fighting to PKK and ISIL. Should we add these? And add a "(Turkish claim)". Beshogur (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Its pretty clear the ISIS claim is misinformation, there have never been any reports of ISIS there and none of the coalitions actually fighting ISIS have ever attacker there. The PKK claim is actaully plausible at least, Turkish army has reported finding PKK flags in the areas they have captured, but that is of course somewhat unreliable. Do the PKK or other kurdish groups deny that they are there? In summary I would oppose adding ISIS to the info box but am neutral to adding the PKK (Turkish claim) if others agree. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Murchison-Eye. Fringe claims should not be supported. PKK is plausible but ISIL is absolutely not. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just because someone claims they are fighting the Islamic State (which has become a bogeyman mentioned by several parties (e.g. Syria/Russia in the past) also when not involved) - is not an indications that Islamic State is actually involved.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There are claims that are a possibility and then there are claims that are not. Reliable 3rd party sources confirm no ISIL in Afrin. Meanwhile, reliable 3rd party sources have not contradicted the claim about the PKK presence, but have not confirmed it either, so we leave them in the box as a Turkish claim due to the ambiguity. So to summarize, I agree with Murchison-Eye, Editor abcdef and Icewhiz. EkoGraf (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PKK propaganda
Just wanted to say that the editors should be cautious when using pkk sources as they are known to be very very unreliable. Needbrains (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Pro-Turkish sources are equally unreliable. The best sources would be from outsiders (Russia/UK/France/Egypt) if we are going to remove material from one conflicting member. ~ Prince of Kurdistan.

True. Both turkish and pkk sources shouldn't bu used to to immediatly edit the article. SOHR is also pro-pkk btw Needbrains (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No evidence exists SOHR is pro-pkk. SOHR is regularly cited as pro-Syrian opposition actually (who are anti-YPG) and considered an authoritative source on Syria by reliable media outlets. It was also decided through several editor discussions during the last 7 years that SOHR is considered a reliable source. EkoGraf (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your are right that SOHR is pro opposition (meaning anti assad). But that doesn't mean that SOHR supports all rebels. SOHR doesnt support the turkish backed rebels or the HTS aligned jihadi rebels. SOHR supports the so called secular rebels, and since Operation Euphrates Shield SOHR has become very pro-pkk Needbrains (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Like I said, no evidence that SOHR is pro-pkk. In fact, SOHR is showing a general 3rd party attitude. SOHR is reporting casualty figures that are contrary to those claimed by Turkey, but they are also reporting casualty figures that are contrary to those claimed by the SDF as well. Same goes for territorial gains and losses. And previous numerous discussions by Wikipedia editors have deemed SOHR one of the most reliable sources that exist, besides Masdar, when it comes to territorial changes in the Syrian war. In any case, unless there is evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that SOHR is pro-pkk (although no reliable evidence of the pkk being in this conflict either) then SOHR is considered a verifiable/reliable source as it has been for the last seven years. At the moment, the most unreliable sources are Kurdish and Turkish media outlets. But still, on the example of the casualty figures, we provide claims made by both sides (both Kurdish and Turkish) so to protect Wikipedia's neutrality and present both sides POV in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with EkoGraf; SOHR is most definitely not pro-PKK/YPG. Just look at their reports about the Battle of Raqqa (2017), during which they reguarily reported about failings of the YPG-led forces, such as forced conscription of locals, looting, killing of civilians, military setbacks and the desertion of Arab forces within the SDF. They are not always reliable, but since the faction they sympathized with the most in Syria has almost completely vanished (namely indepedent Syrian nationalist / moderate Islamist rebels), they are more neutral than most sources. Applodion (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realise that SOHR is run by a man who lives in an apartment in London and gets his sources from twitter right? Needbrains (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, SOHR has sources on the ground, thats the reason for it being considered mostly reliable in the first place. Secondly, as EkoGraf already said, SOHR has been discussed several times here on Wikipedia and the conclusion was that is a reliable source. Applodion (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please look at this http://www.dw.com/en/sohr-turkey-supports-anything-that-harms-the-kurds/a-42334921?maca=en-Twitter-sharing How can you claim SOHR is neutral? It may be neutral in clashes that takes place between jihadi rebels and SAA, but not when turkish backed rebels fight against sdf/ypg pkk whatever. Rami Abdel Rahman (the owner of SOHR, WHO LIVES IN LONDON....) is definetly biased against the Turks. Needbrains (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, in its language SOHR is most definitely not neutral when it comes to clashes between any kinds of rebels and the SAA. It is well established it is anti-Assad. Second, we are talking about the reliability of SOHR's reporting on territorial changes and numbers of casualties. And, like we have said, despite SOHR being "biased" against Assad for example, it has been established by Wikipedia's editing community it is reliable when it comes to these two kinds of reporting. Also, if someone has an issue with Turkey's actions doesn't mean they are automatically "pro-PKK". EkoGraf (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Too bad you guys cannot just surrender the Earth to the Galactic Government, then this violence would automatically end. I would like to see PKK and Turkish forces (or their allies) continue fighting with Galactic Regiments Present. Trust me, you be too intimidated to do anything. If you don't think the Galactic Government is not real, get a 500 milliwatt laser (or better), learn morse code and send messages to the moon for an entire week. Then you'll know they are there. As for why we haven't had contact, xenophobia, racism and SJWs. That is why. That is why humanity is doomed. ~ Prince of Kurdistan

KCK
The Kurdistan Communities Union, which PYD is a part of, was founded by the PKK. As this link is the primary justification Turkey uses for their intervention, an inclusion of the PYD-KCK affiliation is crucial for a clearer understanding of the background of the conflict. To create a more nuanced information, KCK must be mentioned. – amateur (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

What are Obis shells?
"in response to the recent bombardments with mortars and Obis haphazardly against the civilians' houses." I see the reference in the cited article, but I can't find an outside reference to Obis aside from Star Wars, Skyrim and oceanography. Is it a regional munitions company? Morfusmax (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed it for now unless some one can explain, I speak english and am pretty up to date with millitary terms and it means nothing to me, so really it has no place on the English wiki. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's referring to artillery? In several languages, variations of 'obus' refer to either howitzers, artillery shells or both.--J. E. C. E. (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm right if you look at the context of the original source given for that claim: . Should we reincorporate some of this information?--J. E. C. E. (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy if some one wants to add it back in as "mortars and artillery", although it is a minor distinction. Murchison-Eye (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--J. E. C. E. (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018
President Erdogan announced that they had 7-8 losses (of which 3 are Turkish soldiers and 4 FSA). This should be added by FSA LOSSES BESIDEs th sorh claim 2A02:A400:226B:1:185:7A2:69B0:1465 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018
Takinginterest01 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I would added under Turkey and the FSA "Supported by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham/HTS" Here are my sources https://twitter.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/956125973044453376 https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/24-january-hts-claims-involvement-in-turkish-opsattacks-on That is from 'Ibaa agency which is the HTS equivalent of ISIS' Amaq
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018
Takinginterest01 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I would also like to add to the YPG side supported by Syria

https://twitter.com/op_shield/status/955016528084299776 https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/956185771387613185

Sources


 * ❌ -- needs reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Mayadeen is Pro-Regime for one another is that it is like any other news station if a pro-regime station says the regime is supporting the Kurds why can't it be added as for the evidence of HTS supporting Turkey it is from HTS themselves, this is aside the fact they ceded land to the Turkish operation in Idlib.

Here is more evidence HTS supports Turkey in their operation in Afrin

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/01/turkey-aligned-qaeda-syria-idlib-iran-financial-crisis.html

Turkish soldier casualties
I see that the number of Turkish soldier deaths has been changed to 4. Thats not true. Till now, the Turkish military anounced 3 TSK/TAF death. Also, on the bottom of the list, the 10-11 killed Turkish soldiers and FSA (per Turkey) should be more detailed as of the 10-11 deaths, just 3 of them are soldiers Hakan2600000 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That section of the column is dedicated to casualties reported by SOHR, and the cited SOHR source says four soldiers. We have a separate section for what the Turkish military is claiming. Whether you choose to believe what SOHR says is true or not is your prerogative, but we edit per the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018
Turkish soldier losses is 3, not 4. There is the source:. AA is a Turkish state agency and uses their operation statements from the military. There is no 4th soldier loss, which seems to be claimed by Sohr. So it should be fixed. Either by adding the 4 solderis killed per sorh and 3 soldiers killed per Turkey. Hakan2600000 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The section of the column where it says four soldiers have been killed is dedicated to casualty reports by SOHR (which says four killed per the cited source). We have a separate section for casualty figures claimed by the Turkish military. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

True, but on the Turkish section the soldier losses, which are at the moment 3, should be put apart from the FSA losses in the same section. Otherwise it will be confusing about how many soldiers died Hakan2600000 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be better to put the per SDF killed section and per Turkey killed section next to eacht other. That way it will look better for the readers and less confusing Hakan2600000 (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not possible in a Wikipedia infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean by putting either the Per Turkey or per SDF lower or higher on the list to put in a bit more on the same line, if you know what I mean, not that it should be 100% same line Hakan2600000 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018
The per Turkey section needs to be more detailed. The source: Says that 3 soldiers were killed and 7-8 FSA fighters were killed. So it should be listed in the section like this: Turkey: 3 soldiers killed (per Turkey), FSA: 7-8 killed (per Turkey). Hakan2600000 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean the casualties/per Turkey losses of the Turkish soldiers and FSA fighters should be put as 3 soldiers killed and 7-8 FSA fighters killed. Not as it is now (10-11 killed FSA and Tukrish soldiers). Hakan2600000 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Title
Can I move it to Turkish military operation in Afrin or Operation Olive Branch? Is a move request really that necessary, at least for the first one? The term "operation" is more commonly used in sources (not that much when it comes to "intervention"), and while Olive Branch is a WP:POVNAME, it is also very common among followers of this conflict. But I think the location (Afrin) comes to mind more easily than the operation's code name, which I understand to be a bit controversial. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose a move to Operation Olive Branch. The name is not neutral and sardonic. Zekelayla (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018
On the Turkish military Afrin intervention/Operation Olive Branch article there is a mistake. On the casualties section there is something wrong by the per Turkey killed section. It says that several soldiers from Turkey were captured (per Turkey). However this is not true. The source has not been translated very well. The president spoke to the wife of an soldier that was kidnapped in the south east by the pkk. The more detailed and Turkish version mentions nothing about the YPG. Because it didn’t even happen in Afrin. Can you fix it by removing the ‘’Several soldiers killed’’? This is the source for my claim:

As you can see, it makes no mention of the YPG. The statement from the latest update from the Turkish military has no thing as captured/missing soldiers either, see source:

The YPG has 2 Turkish soldier deaths/bodies in their hands (out of the 5 total killed). Thats the only thing they have. See TSK statement:

I hope that this can be fixed it by removing the false claim of captured soldiers by the per Turkey section. Morhat26000 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1st source - The PKK is not mentioned at all (as you claimed). 2nd source - That it is not mentioned in the one source you linked doesn't mean it didn't happen. 3rd source - Outdated. At this point, a reliable 3rd party source (that is neither Kurdish or Turkish) has been cited in the infobox confirming (per Erdogan) some soldiers are missing or captured by the YPG. EkoGraf (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The first source shown is the Turkish version of the English source used by Username:EkoGraf. The Turkish version makes no mention of the YPG. The per Turkey section should have Turkish sources either from Turkish news sites or agencies (which have directly TSK statements as well. EkoGraf on the other hand uses an source that isn't the same with the Turkish version. There is no single Turkish source that mentions any soldier captured by th YPG. There are only two dead bodies in the hand of the YPG which is sourced. So I reccomend this to be reviewed again. There is no Turkish source that says than any soldier is captured by the YPG Sersindaer (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please show me an Turkish source that shows that Erdogan said these words. Till now you only showed English translated versions of the talk between Erdogan and the families. Sersindaer (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is the Turkish version of the talk between Erdogan and the Wife of the Turkish soldier. It makes no mention of the YPG nor Afrin. There are however Turkish sources that confirm that the pkk kidnapped soldiers in the sout east, not in afrin. Sersindaer (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't remove the per Turkey captured soldiers, the you should put the ''captured soldiers" apart from the Per Turkey section and put it in a different section Sersindaer. See latest source which says 5 soldiers killed, no mention of missing/captured soldiers: (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish response
The Spanish ministry of defence said:

"The Spanish quota is in a mission supporting Turkey, keeping operated launchers in the Base of Incirlick"

3 days ago.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018
In the per Turkey section of the casualties it says that there are several captured, which seems to be not true at all. See this source. It clearly doesnt't mention the YPG as the ones who captured these soldiers nor did Erdogan mention. Erdogan called the wife of an missing soldier that was captured/kindapped in the south east (which isn't mentioned in the source) however it doesn't say afrin. There are sources that confirm that the pkk did capture soldiers but the ypg never did for now. There is the most recent source of when the pkk captured soldiers Sersindaer (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So the captured soldier per Turkey should be removed as it is wrong Sersindaer (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1st see talk above. 2nd the source you provided does not deny soldiers have been captured and it does not contradict the other reliable source which clearly cites Erdogan saying soldiers are captured/missing and that it was the YPG holding them. 3rd, the second source you provided is out-dated by more than a year and unrelated since it talks about some soldiers captured in 2016. You should also be warned that combination of different sources to make up your own conclusions is strictly prohibited per WP:SYNTH. EkoGraf (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is the latest source:. No such thing as missing/captured soldiers Sersindaer (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The latest source I added is the report from the akp ministery of defence in the perliamant. I added the Turkish version of the missing soldier to proof my point. There is no mention in the latest source of any captured soldier because there isn't any. You said that the second source is outdated. I didn't say that the second one was recent, I just added that to bring in more detail from my point Sersindaer (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That the source you linked doesn't mention the missing/captured soldiers doesn't deny or contradict the fact the reliable AP reported Erdogan saying soldiers are captured/missing and being held by the YPG. As for the rest you said, again, what you did is a combination of different sources to make up your own conclusions and is strictly prohibited per WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a source that clearly states a denial or statement by Turkey that no soldiers are captured/missing then everything else is your personal POV of the situation, which you are entitled to, but edits based on that are not allowed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How can there be a denial when there is no single Turkish source (in Turkish) saying that the ypg captured soldiers in afrin? The latest source I added is the most recent one. If there were any captured/missing soldiers the ministery of defence would have said that then as well. He said that till now 5 soldiers and 24 fsa fighters were killed. (see latest source I added) Sersindaer (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You just add things that have no Turkish version of it and say its true. I added the latest source of a statement telling what the total casualties till now are. Captured soldiers belong to the casualties as well, which is not mentoned in the latest source I added. Sersindaer (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Turkistan Islamic Party
The inclusion of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria, a Jihadist al-Qeda group, on the side of Turkey in this conflict has raised objections. I can see why. Though the source for this info, al-Monitor, is generally reliable, the writer for the article in question appears to be generally anti-Erdogan. Other sources that mention TIP during the Afrin operation are anti-Turkish or anti-AKP, such as the Hawar News Agency, see here, and Insight Turkey or RBIS. Thus, perhaps we should for now exclude TIP or mention that its support for this operation is only confirmed by biased sources. What do you think, ? Applodion (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can agree these groups may be active in the front where Afrin borders Idlib. But they're not part of this operation. Turkistan Islamic party is not even active in Northern Idlib, their stronghold is Jisr al Soughor. I would say, we should exclude Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) and add southern front on units1 section. As far I know, I didn't see any neutral source who says TIP is part of this operation. For example Fehim Tastekin is heavily biased and known for it's anti-AKP stance. About Muslim Brotherhood, they're not an Armed militia, but a political organization, we can't add them as "support", they're not giving military support but political. If there's a reliable article that says MB is giving Turkey support, we should add them on reactions section. Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we should exclude TIP. I also agree that we could put the "Southern front" factions into the units section, though perhaps still mention in the Belligerents section that non-TFSA Syrian factions are also fighting in the operation. In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood: The sources state that Muslim Brotherhood-loyal units are fighting as part of TFSA, so that its support is not just political. I think that is not really disputable; there are several Islamist units in the TFSA. Applodion (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes we already agreed upon. Applodion (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks better. Beshogur (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MIT-led volunteers
Can anyone explain what these are? Beshogur (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly clear. The article which noted them does not make clear if these volunteers are Turks or Syrians, but I would assume these are Syrians who provide intelligence for MIT during this operation. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MIT is already mentioned, I see no reason to add "MIT-led volunteers". Who are these guys? Have Fehim Tastekin provided a source? It sounds ridiculous. Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is too ambigous, so we best just mention the MIT. In case more detailed infos surface, we can re-add them. Applodion (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added alleged Grey Wolves to units1 section. Is this ok? Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the sources that claim they fight in this operation note that the Grey Wolves operate as part of the TFSA: Yes, I don't see why they should not be in the units section. Applodion (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Grey Wolves on Turkey section
Is that a joke? SOHR is biased. Should I add ISIL on YPG section because Turkey claimed it? Beshogur (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Previous consensus has been that SOHR is a reliable source (while I think everyone accepts that all reporting from the region is difficult). Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That you think SOHR is biased is your personal POV which you have every right too. But, as Bondegezou said, multiple consensus' have been reached on Wikipedia that SOHR is a verifiable source despite being pro-opposition. As for ISIL, see previous discussion, 3rd party neutral/reliable sources have verified ISIL does not exist in Afrin. EkoGraf (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Map
The map in the infobox needs to be updated regulary. Right now the map is outdated. 87.214.138.158 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

War participants
"TFSA" does not exist outside of Reddit and has no meaningful distinction. Back when it was still known as the FSA, it had branches in both Idlib and al Bab (ie Ahrar al Sham, Faylaq al Sham, Jabha al Shamiyya, Fastaqim, Zenki, etc). Now due to mergers and consolidations, they attempt to rebrand themselves as the "Syrian National Army", and yet Faylaq al Sham still largely operates independently in both Idlib and Afrin.

Also, the Syrian MB is a political party and listing it as a participant makes no sense, it does not have an official armed wing. It does have influence with factions like Faylaq al Sham, but including the Syrian MB on Turkey's side is like including the HDP on Afrin's side. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also Muslim brotherhood support is taken again from Fehim Tastekin's article, calling "MIT and MB mercenaries". There's also source of South front, but it doesn't mention MB. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange. The SouthFront article originally mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood; they probably later edited it out. Considering that this only leaves the al-Monitor article as (somewhat) reliable source, I will remove the brotherhood from the Belligerents section. Applodion (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Popular Front to resist the Turkish occupation"
Who are these guys? Also the event has nothing to do with Afrin. Idlib incident was about de-escalation zones which was agreed between Turkey-Russia. Beshogur (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that Hawar News reported them suggests that some connection might exist; it would not be the first time a militia or front organization has been set up by the PYD in northern Syria to fight Turkey, see the Syrian National Resistance. We can delete them if no more reports of them surface, but at least let us wait a little bit before concluding that they do not exist or have no connection to the Afrin operation. Applodion (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictures in the body of the article
There's wayyyy to much pictures in the body of the article. Makes it very very cluttered. They need to be set aside to have their own gallery in their own appropriate section or something. Either that, or just reduce the amount of photographs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Other articles have picture galleries at the bottom. They should be moved there, while one or two is left in the main body of the article perhaps. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which ones should stay in the main body? The flag raising scene probably, but do you have more suggestions? Applodion (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whichever stay equal representation would be needed. I would suggest the air-strike picture, the flag on the mountain picture and that a picture of SDF fighters in action be found and put in. EkoGraf (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Shishani
This should be removed. Yeni-Akit is not reliable. Also the claim has not any evidence. Shishani part should be deleted. Reason, first of all the news is not true, it denied by (Shishani) himself. So that part of the section should be removed. , this is nothing else than fooling the readers. Beshogur (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm actually sympathetic to this one. I don't see why Muslim Shishani specifically -- especially given the doubt about his presence -- has any particular notability for this article. It explains pretty clearly how ISIS fighters are present, we don't need to talk about which ones especially ones that are disputed. --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're confused. Muslim Abu Walid al Shishani is not Abu Omar al-Shishani (ISIS commander). "It explains pretty clearly how ISIS fighters are present" Get your facts please. There's no evidence that groups like Turkistan Islam Party or Jund al Sham are present in this operation. Turkistan Islamic party was removed while ago, Muslim Shishani should be removed as well. It's nothing else than confusing readers. Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I mix up members of different violent Islamist groups with the same nom from the time to time. Anyhow if you didn't read my post clearly it says I support your position on this........--Calthinus (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I misunderstood. Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes
Why should alleged war crimes need a better source? Anadolu Agency is an official news agency. You believe or not what they're claiming, it doesn't matter. It's "alleged". Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a state-runned news outlet that is highly partial and partisan vis-a-vis the operation. The Turkish state, who is the most notable belligerent to this conflict, is not expected to provide neutral and unbiased reports for "war crimes", especially when even criticizing the operation or even mentioning that civilians died due to Turkish bombardment today can land you in jail in Turkey. Just saying "According to the Anadolu Agency..." doesn't make it any better, specially when it concerns highly sensitive matters such as war crimes. What we need are third-party neutral sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed Etienne, it's been pretty conclusively established that "official news agencies" of Turkey are not to be relied on for this conflict. I suggest they should be removed and replaced whenever possible. Oftentimes there are others that report the same things, so they can be replaced (as I have tried to do here and there). --Calthinus (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A state news agency is not a good source but al-Masdar and Turkeypurge are best sources? Come on. Beshogur (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We've had a consensus agreement concerning al-Masdar awhile ago. can elaborate more on it. Turkey Purge is reliable until proven otherwise. They've been consistently cited in major news media outlets when it comes to the journalist crackdown and other abuses that are ongoing in Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In regards to Masdar I already elaborated a few times. Discussions among editors reached a consensus that they are reliable when it comes to territorial changes, unit dispositions and sometimes casualties. As for everything else, it can be inserted into articles as a pro-Syrian government claim if an appropriate anti-Syrian government or 3rd party claim is also presented so to balance out the POV. As for Turkish official news agencies... I think that in regards to things like territorial claims or casualty figures they could be used to present Turkish claims on the subject. As for anything else, if there are appropriate pro-Kurdish or 3rd party neutral sources that counter or confirm the Turkish concrete claim then all can be used as a properly balanced POV (just like in the case of Masdar). But if there are no other (Kurdish or 3rd party) sources on a subject claimed by Turkey then it should be considered an exceptional claim and not included I think. EkoGraf (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have been very consistent on this point-- I have opposed relying on Anadolu and I opposed relying on Masdar as well, in fact I have personally made a point of removing Masdar citations as I did here ([]). However when I did that I wasn't aware of the conversation that had apparently taken place that found Masdar reliable as notes above. I don't mean to say Anadolu should be removed on sight as there are some appropriate uses -- it should be attributed when used, and the Turkish official viewpoint also should be mentioned (but not portrayed as fact). I just don't think we should use Anadolu when the content is controversial. --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

US in the infobox
Can we please discuss the matter before re-adding the United States? And to add on this unfinished edit summary: The same Reuters article says that the US government is carefully tracking its arms supply to the YPG, but doesn't mention Afrin in this context. The Turkish government often makes such claims. Doesn't mean we have to take them at face value. When an independent third party makes the same claim or when Olive Branch eventually involves Manbij, only then we can reconsider. Also, military infoboxes are usually reserved for actual combatants, not outside support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no reason the US should be listed in the belligerent section of the infobox, it has no personnel taking part in the offensive. It is certainly not a belligerent power, and no reliable sources anywhere have alleged that the United States has supplied the YPG in Afrin.XavierGreen (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, we should not have this unless RS start actually reporting it, not Erdogan spewing conspiracy theories.--Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkish claim that has been denied by YPG, is stated as fact
In the section "Damage to archaeological and cultural sites" it is stated that:

"On 24 January, YPG fired rocket from Syria hit the 17th century Çalık Mosque in Kilis, Turkey."

This is stated as a matter of fact, but this is a turkish claim that has been vigorously denied by YPG, which has called it a "false flag operation to justify turkish aggression". Many observers have also stated it's unlikely that YPG would be able to shoot rockets at such a distance, exactly hit the dome of a mosque exactly during prayer time making perfect propaganda for AKP's religous voters. But this should not be stated as a fact, rather it should be clear that this is a turkish claim denied by YPG. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D60:EAD:D0E7:84F3:4F6C:6FDE (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkey is in a situation in which they fear their growth of industry will decrease if they aren't able to outreach, which is investing in other countries. It can be akin to colonization, expansion of territory or being part of a federation like the EU. So it appears that the delay of allowing Turkey to become part of the EU is the main factor behind its current aggressive actions. Turks do have an alternate choice, become a federation with the Kurds and use that to promote Kurdish groups seeking annexation into a Turkish-Kurdish Federation. This will allow a more peaceful means for Turkey to manage its strategic interests without harm of life concerning human beings. I would like for a Turk to argue with me on this and hold a legitimate stance for why this does not happen besides the fact it has not happened yet. ~ Prince of Kurdistan.

Using SOHR as neutral source
I don't think SOHR should be used here. They're calling Turkish intervention "agression", claiming grey wolves are active in Afrin, there are several anti-Turkish articles on their website. I don't we should use them as a "neutral" source. They have bias against Turkey. So not neutral. Beshogur (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to find sources covering Syria in detail that don't have some degree of bias. As it is also difficult to be an editor interested in these topics without having our own biases! We do need to be constantly alert to potential bias in this article, and we need to use this Talk page as a place to work through any questions.
 * Within that context, SOHR has generally been considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. A safe approach is to find multiple citations where possible, and to be explicit in the text as to what sourcing is used. So, don't say "X did Y[73]", but "SOHR reported that X did Y[73]". Given all these caveats, I think we should continue to use SOHR. Turkey has indisputably sent military forces across an international border into another country. Referring to such an act as "aggression" is not entirely inconsistent with mainstream reporting and commentary. The Grey Wolves claim could do with more citations, but does not seem implausible given their activities described at Grey_Wolves_(organization). Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great Unity Party, aka Alperen Ocaklari is often confused with Grey Wolves. They've sent once over 100 paramilitaries, but people think they're grey wolves. Here is an example from 2015. Alperen's sent a force of 70 men to Turkmen Mountain. Not Alperen's nor Grey Wolves has any force in Olive Branch Operation. If some soldiers doing that sign, it doesn't mean they're affiliated with the organization of Grey Wolves. Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever your personal opinion about SOHR, to which you have every right to, the fact is SOHR has been considered to be a reliable/verifiable source by Wikipedia for the Syrian civil war for the last 7 years (following multiple discussions and despite its anti-Assad language). As for the Grey Wolves part, we already noted, as Bondegezou said we should, that their involvement in the operation is according to SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Using SOHR for casualties is ok in my opinion, but using it as an opinion piece shouldn't be allowed. This sentence especially: However, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) remarked that "Turkey supports anything that harms the Kurds," and stated that Turkey has consistently been allowing jihadist fighters to cross the Turkish border into Syria to fight Kurdish forces since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All points of view need to be presented as per Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Just like we present Turkey's lone view that the YPG are terrorists. EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Its time to move SOHR to the causalities section and just keep SDF and Turkish/FSA claims in the Info box. SOHR's numbers are not backed by pictorial evidence like Turkey and FSA's numbers and they are overstating FSA and Turkish losses while understating SDF losses. Why this one man group continues to be used is beyond me and the argument that others believe him reliable just doesn't fly. Tgoll774 (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Beshogur, is the reason for why you deem them to not be neutral is because you are Turkish and hold a pro-Turkish stance. What is your opinion about Kurds? Are they humans or are they just some random bunch of people who exist within a region for the same reason Israelis hold for Palestinians? Israelis believe Palestinians are just displaced Bosnians as a result of the Austro-Ottoman War in which the Austrians took Bosnia from the Ottomans. The displaced Bosnians had their homes originally taken by German Austrians, Hungarians and Croats. The former two later were removed after WWI and had their homes taken by Serbs as Bosnia (as well as Croatia, Northern Serbia and Slovenia) was given to the Monarch of Serbia becoming the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes and thus allowing Serbian settlement into Bosnia. This of course leads to why Serbian region in Bosnia exists today when such did not exist back when the land was almost 100% Bosnian/Bosniak under Ottoman control. Do you hold this same view concerning the Kurds? What is your opinion of having a non-European language (Turkish) utilized in an area that is more European in its history than Asian? Even though Anatolia has been called Asia, much as Tunisia has been called Africa, the culture of Anatolia and its history is more closer to that of the Balkans than it has with Syria or the Arabian Peninsula. ~ Prince of Kurdistan.

AKP claim about PYD releasing ISIS members
I am about to revert on this again []. The only source here is Anadolu -- discussed above, most users seem to think that given the current media situation in Turkey, it is not a source to rely on. The claim about Turkey's involvement with ISIL was sourced to Western media, in contrast. Furthermore, the source of the claim is an AKP politician, not any sort of ground situation expert. I don't think this is WP:DUE. But please, let us discuss. , and  also seem involved.--Calthinus (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed and this is just shear disruption on behalf of Beshogur and other drive-by WP:EDITNINJAS (like this) who haven't participated in the talk page themselves but are quick to say that other users should even though those users already have. Even after I pointed that out to them, they still continue to press that revert button not even realizing that they've violating 1RR at this point. I suggest that user quit edit-warring so much and actually take up his own advice and join the discussion at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The text I removed was not just "Turkish claims" that need to be presented alongside Kurdish claims for "fairness". They were outlandish claims (e.g. the claim that ISIS is fighting alongside the Kurds) sourced to junk sources (basically, Turkish government mouthpieces). They have no place in this article. "Fairness" is not a wikipedia policy. Khirurg (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Beshogur is a Turkish agent. Perhaps, young gentlemen (Calthinus, EtienneDolet and Khirurg), you could press Wikipedia to do a background check on users to screen out those that work specifically for a government's interest and should therefore be barred from retaining their membership on wikipedia. Of course, he could just do what I do and appear without a membership. I don't have a membership, because the last time I was a member, I was viciously attacked by users here for just correcting a repeat of the word "the" in a sentence. The worse part was that after trying to work out the details for this attack, I was blocked and somehow had various accounts of mine hacked with my valuables and money in my accounts either stolen or misplaced. It took three years (this was back in 2014) to straighten everything out. And so I am back, but no account. No thank you, sir. Nevertheless, I believe you need to screen certain people who may be working for a government and trying to censor certain information out of political interest. ~ Prince of Kurdistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.26.248 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

T129 ATAK downed by Kurds
There's a huge misinformation in this article. Reuters is introducing it that Erdogan has said "YPG downed the helicopter". "Turkish helicopter shot down by Kurdish militia in Syria's Afrin: Erdogan". You Can't find any sentence like this. Although Turkish army announced that helicopter felt due to technical reasons and it was fallen in Hatay, Kirikhan district, not Afrin. Beshogur (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What's "lancinating"? Khirurg (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I edited my comment. Beshogur (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This and this does not look like Hatay to me, nor does it look like a technical difficulty either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when does Twitter reports became relevant here? Also I was wrong. Helicopter was fallen in Syrian part of the border. The video was recorded by rebels, not YPG. According to DHA helicopter's wreckage was found near border of Kirkhan district (Syrian part). I don't see any shootdown in your video as well. Beside that, reuters' report is misleading. It doesn't mention Kurds downed it, except the misleading title. Beshogur (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Twitter videos aren't RSs yes, but even Twitter videos are more reliable than what Erdogan says almost all the time. It's still an early development and I'm sure these videos are going to be used by more mainstream news media outlets. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Twitter videos aren't RSs yes, but even Twitter videos are more reliable than what Erdogan says almost all the time. This is your opinion. Not a general consensus. Wickfox —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think Reuters is conducting a huge misinformation that is your right. However, Reuters is considered a highly reliable and verifiable source and we write per the sources. And the source states that according to Erdogan the helicopter was shot down. Quote from the source - A Turkish army helicopter was shot down by Syrian Kurdish YPG fighters near the north Syrian town of Afrin, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday. And it wasn't just Reuters who reported Erdogan's confirmation of the shootdown. So, the fact Erdogan said it is verifiable and thus can be included in the article. I have no problem with introducting the TAF's claim of an accident as well. EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Using SCWM as source
How legit is this? It's a biased source. And using websites like, liveua, scwmap shouldn't be allowed here. It's double standart when you're removing Turkish websites and adding biased pro-YPG websites like this. Beshogur (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * SCWM has been regularly used as a reliable source for territorial updates during the Syrian civil war for years. To classify a source as unreliable per Wikipedia's policy you need to provide evidence of its unreliability and this needs to be presented in a wide-ranging discussion among Wikipedia editors. Just saying It's a biased source and calling it a biased pro-YPG website in your personal opinion without providing evidence to confirm it is not enough. So please do not remove sourced information. already attributed the claim rightly to SCWM. We let the readers decide further weather to trust it or not. EkoGraf (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable about territorial updates, but not about casualties. What's the source of these casualties, can I ask? We have already SOHR which is considered somehow neutral. No need for websites for SCWmap. Beshogur (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not provided evidence they are unreliable. Its simple as that. As for SOHR, nobody thinks they are neutral in their political views, but they are considered reliable/verifiable in their reporting of events as they happen (territorial changes, numbers of dead, etc). EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SOHR is far away from being reliable. SOHR is just a single man reporting from his basement in London and he refuses to share his methodology and data. Could you show me a single professional organization that refuses to share their methodology and data? HRW doesn't do that, ICG doesn't do that. These are great examples for professional organizations and SOHR is not one of them. The SCWM is the same when comes to being professional. That website is run by a single Kurdish man from Europe and he gets all of his from a relative of his who is part of YPG. What is next? Using twitter as a source for wikipedia articles? Why not use @vivarevolt on twitter as source from now on? He's pretty reliable too after all? Patetez (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to SOHR, its been debated to death for the last 7 years and each time consensus was it is a reliable source which is also used as a reliable source on Syria by other verifiable sources. As for SCWM, as I said, to deem it unreliable you need to provide evidence in the form of verifiable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is SCWM in a nutshell for you: https://twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/965970139903651842. Much """professionalism""" such wow. You wanna use that Kurdish troll kid who is in his twenties as a "professional" source on Wikipedia then go ahead and do it. I really don't care to be honest. After all this is the reason why everyone calls Wikipedia a joke anyways. So just keep it that way. Patetez (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just spotted this as well and I'm of the same opinion that it shouldn't be allowed, but for the reason that it seems like a case of WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SPS; On the face the site seems credible, but we know nothing about how it fact-checks, or if it fact-checks at all, or who is behind it. This is the total extent of info they provide about themselves: "Unlike other websites we are not using online and public sources. We are in contact with many people living in Syria and Iraq. These people provide information about the current circumstances in the conflict areas."
 * This really should not be used as a source. Eik Corell (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To deem a source unreliable you need to provide proof its unreliable. Personal opinions don't constitute that. SCWM has been used as a reliable source for years now in regards to the Syrian conflict. Also, you should be warned that all Syrian war-related articles are under a 1RR sanction (no more than 1 revert per 24 hours). You made two cancellations in less then 24 hours with the removal of SCWM and the info its sourcing. Please refrain from any further removals or you will be running the possibility of getting blocked. Rather try discussing the issue with your fellow editors. EkoGraf (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, the Syria-War related articles have a problem with the audience they attract; Many of the people who contribute to them are somehow engaged in watching it unfold, and so try to introduce crowd-sourced sites like this website, blogs, and reddit as sources. Because of this, I don't think it's fair to say there is consensus when much of this bad sourcing is simply ignored because the people who add it are not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing and there just isn't the general attention to clean up these articles. This website uses confidential sources, so nothing it says can be independently verified, either. It's not a matter of proving it wrong, but a question of its methodology conflicting with WP:RS in fundamental ways. Look at the article that the article cites here, it's a graph with absolutely no information on how the number was derived, besides quoting itself as the source. WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", but I have yet to see any info on the qualifications of the person(s) behind it, or reliable third-party sources citing this website as a source, either. I haven't seen any consensus here on Wikipedia about its validity as a source, it just kind of pops up like a lot of other questionable sources. Eik Corell (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus was established several years ago on the talk page of the Syrian civil war map page. Both pro-government, pro-rebel and neutral editors were involved in the discussion (as always). EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Searching for it in the talk archives, I can only find talk about the various Wiki ones like this. Could you link the discussion? Eik Corell (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War is the talk page in question. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Going through the archives there, this seems to be the only major debate on the subject, and that's far from a consensus about the validity of the source. The only arguments I'm seeing for keeping it at the one's I've seen here: It's reliable, it's been used for a long time, but both of these are dubious in my opinion; in the talk linked above, the reliability is called into question, and the sources having been used for a long time isn't really based on what I wrote above. I'm thinking that putting up an entry on WP:RSN about this as mentioned in the debate would be a good idea. Eik Corell (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SAA support to YPG?

 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-kurds/friend-or-foe-assad-quietly-aids-syrian-kurds-against-turkey-idUSKBN1FV078

YPG rocket attack
Though it may not have been a deliberate attack on civilians, civilians still died as a result and that is a war a crime and should be noted just as the Turkish airstrikes are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's only a war crime if the civilians are deliberately targeted. There is nothing to suggest this was the case here. Khirurg (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That can likewise be said about the Turkish airstrikes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty
The lead section of this article currently states that "Hundreds of civilians have been killed" in the conflict.

The word "hundreds", being plural, literally implies at least 200 deaths, and being as vague a word as it is, means that the death toll can be anywhere between 200 and 1000 (and one would reasonably assume that it is not as low as 200). That of course raises the question about why such vague wording is used.

The question is easily answered with an examination of the source that is used to support the content. The BBC source states: "A Syrian Kurdish health official said on Saturday that 150 civilians had been killed and 300 wounded since the start of the Turkish operation, but this also cannot be independently verified."

Firstly, even assuming that the official's statement is correct, using the word "hundreds" to describe 150 deaths is simply intellectually dishonest. That literally magnifies the death toll at least two-fold in the eyes of the reader, making this text read even more propagandistic than YPG statements in terms of civilian loss.

Secondly, it is clear that this is not a neutral statement about civilian casualties. Even the BBC emphasises that it lacks independent verification, whereas Wikipedia just jumps at the statement and presents it as fact. I hope I am not the only one disturbed by just how grossly inappropriate this is in terms of core content policies.

The section on "war crime reports" states "Less than a week after the operation having began, at least 66 civilians have been killed by aerial and artillery bombardment by Turkish forces." The Reuters source states "More than 66 civilians have been killed in Turkish air and artillery bombardments of Afrin, Xelil said, accusing it of committing war crimes." Xelil is an SDF official. We are literally reporting accusations by an official in one of the combatants in a conflict as undisputed fact.

I can only hope that such issues do not pervade throughout the article.

--GGT (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkish backed ? or turkish soldiers, same video source for two different sentences
Isn't it contradictory ? Several videos have emerged showing Turkish backed rebels... Another video emerged on social media which showed Turkish soldiers... within War crime reports Source number [128] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:680:DB00:A01A:3885:8:D502 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018
Hey,

On the casualties section by the (Per Turkey) it says now that there are 33 soldiers killed which is not true. The number of killed was 19 before the 11 soldiers were killed two days ago. Which makes the total number of soldiers killed 31, not 33. See source:. The Greek site e-amny has an addiotional 2 killed listed of which one was killed in Idlib several days ago by Rocket fire from assad linked militants. I hope that this can be fixed by changing the killed soldiers number from 33 to 31 (Per Turkey). Aslo to note, there are no Turkish sources that give the number of 33 soldiers killed, both directly and inderectly. Lisandro62836 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The report about 33 deaths was made by Masdar news who quoted the Turkish military as being the primary source for the information. Between, Wikipedia policy advocates secondary, not primary, sources to be used. Best course of action (and compromise) is to present both figures, since a discrepancy between the overall numb said by TAF and the numb of names announced is evident. EkoGraf (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

33 KIA, 93 WIA Turkish soldiers
This must be a joke right? Using a Twitter account for official Turkish Armed forces statement. please revert your edit. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is no longer twitter but Masdar news. All of the 33 names were also announced by various Turkish media outlets. I checked. Best course of action (and compromise) would be to present both figures, since a discrepancy between the overall numb said by TAF and the numb of names announced is evident. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So al Masdar is more reliable than Turkish Armed Forces' website? If they say 31 KIA, 143 injured, you should write it so, not what others said. Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary source is not Masdar. The primary source for the list of names is TAF itself, as stated in the Masdar report (which is a secondary source). So its according to Turkey. Plus its in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of using secondary instead of primary sources whenever possible. If there is a discrepancy between the overall figure that TAF said and the number of names that TAF said then that's their problem. Our obligation is to report all. We do not cherry pick, and that is the reason I am for the inclusion of the lower figure (31) as well as the higher one (33). If you feel a need to verify the list, check each of the names as I did. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought about it and since the 31 kia, 143 wia figures are "official" official, lets go with that one since nobody else picked up on the other estimate among the RS sources. EkoGraf (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliability
just claimed that "Turkish sources are inherently biased and not neutral due to strict media regulations by the AKP government". Let us examine that claim.

Cumhuriyet had half its staff imprisoned, its lead editor forced into self-exile and received an RSF award because of its opposition to the AKP government. This article by Fehim Taştekin, who had his books banned in Turkey, that we currently use as a major source regarding pro-Turkish participants? Cumhuriyet published (actually re-published) its original version in Turkish. It very recently received a public death threat from the fanatics at Yeni Akit due its coverage of the Afrin operation. Calling it "inherently biased and not neutral" is almost an insult to its journalists still in prison.

Bianet is funded by the European Commission and its founders include Ertuğrul Kürkçü, an MP from the HDP. It has a Kurdish sub-section and is currently leading with a biography of Pervin Buldan, the new co-chair of the HDP. To put stuff into context, I had to argue with another editor on Turkish Wikipedia the other day because they claimed that this website is too pro-Kurdish and thus unreliable.

Sendika.org is currently in its 62th iteration because the previous 61 versions of the website have been blocked in Turkey (they hold/have applied for a Guinness World Record AFAIK). They give equal weight in their news reports to statements from the Turkish Armed Forces and from the YPG. They also happened to report on the Kilis mosque attack. Are they also "inherently biased and not neutral"?

Remember Taştekin? Well he is a regular columnist in Gazete Duvar. That website also happened to report on the same attack.

You could claim that these sources would employ self-censorship and that might be a reasonable proposition. But what they do write, I would expect it not to be "not neutral" and "inherently biased" and "unreliable". To say that amounts to saying that they might be producing pro-government fake news. That simply ain't true.

Honestly, whilst the article is still full of unverified YPG claims, I cannot help but perceive this as WP:JDLI. In the meanwhile, I hope that at least Associated Press will be considered neutral enough.

--GGT (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, 60% of the article is about arrests, while only 40% is actually about the conflict itself. Someone trying to show Turkey bad as possible. Beshogur (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I’ll have to be short since I’m quite busy these days. But GGT, you’re missing the point. Turkey, at this point in time, has strict media regulations over the conflict (see this if you’re not already aware). This means that virtually no source in Turkey can question the official government line when it comes to the conflict. Can Cumhurriyet, Bianet, Hurriyet, and other “more reliable” Turkish sources publish anything on say, for example, the mutilation of a female YPG soldier or the murdering of Kurdish civilians or the bombing of schools? Highly doubt it. The very fact that reliable jornalists are going to jail for publishing such material goes to show how we are left with very little journalism we can depend on in Turkey. To put it straightforwardly: as a result of such draconian regulations, every source that is published in Turkey today is not neutral and partial (since they have to follow the government narrative whether they like it or not). This is why Turkish sources should not be used for sensitive matters such as war crimes. Most of us on this talk page do agree that it can be used for official governmental claims (i.e. casuality stats, announcements, etc.). As for your complaint over YPG claims, it should be noted that some YPG claims are taken seriously by notable reliable news outlets like Reuters. That’s why we add them. We generally don’t add Kurdish news outlets just by themselves. They too are partial, but I’d argue still more reliable than Turkish sources since they’re not under strict “patriotic” guidelines from any government, let alone the Turkish government. But if reliable sources take these claims seriously, so should we. As for your recent edit, it’s an improvement from the last when it comes to sourcing. But I haven’t looked deep into it much and will double check them later. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Some implications on both sides here that I disagree with. On the one hand, I don't think having parts of your press imprisoned by a government that wants you to censor yourself logically implies that you're a reliable source (actually such imprisonments might put pressure on the agency and its journalists to be slightly more pro-government for a bit, one might speculate...). On the other hand, I suppose, more in line with GGT's point: self-censorship does not automatically imply that what they do report is unreliable. I think ED has been right that many Turkish sources seem to be spouting the AKP line (including some papers that have historically been more secularist), but it's at least worth noting when there are Turkish sources that (still) don't publish what Erdogan wants them to, even in the present press situation. --Calthinus (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there are many Turkish media outlets debating -on live tv- different views about the operation. It is very wrong to say that "virtually no source in Turkey can question the official government line when it comes to the conflict." Turkey is not North Korea.


 * "it should be noted that some YPG claims are taken seriously by notable reliable news outlets like Reuters. That’s why we add them. We generally don’t add Kurdish news outlets just by themselves. They too are partial, but I’d argue still more reliable than Turkish sources since they’re not under strict “patriotic” guidelines from any government, let alone the Turkish government." So the news outlets spreading the PKK propaganda all over -e.g. ANF News- are more reliable?? Do you really believe this statement? Étienne Dolet, I have to remind you, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". but this doesn't mean you can shape any article that is related to Turkey in your own way. Wickfox (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting too involved in this but what I see in some of the above comments is poorly informed personal opinion and bias - the above statement about Kurdish news outlets is disturbing and an argument like this I’d argue still more reliable than Turkish sources since they’re not under strict “patriotic” guidelines from any government, let alone the Turkish government is not supported by anything other than personal bias. Quote from ANF:
 * "I will not leave comrade Barin’s weapon on the ground...I promise my people that I will continue to struggle until I have only one drop of blood left. I call out to all women here, the period is the period of resistance, in which all women should shoulder the pioneering task in the Afrin resistance. Because the ranks of freedom are the places where truth is experienced"
 * - this is more reliable? Not really. Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Turkish sources can not be considered reliable for anything besides the regime's statements per Freedom House and RSF particularly for this subject. However, most Kurdish and Syrian sources suffer from the same or worse problems. Most Western reporting is woefully uninformed (and often just quote a local source). In short - good luck - few sources here are of a reasonable quality - it's a he said/she said affair.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but what I see being removed are statements from the Turkish government [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=825338289&oldid=825337975] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=826076644&oldid=826065665] - I don't think statements from the government should be censored, we usually report a government statement when there is an official denial. Regarding this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=825337975&oldid=825336258] - while Turkish sources may be self-censoring, I think it is quite a stretch to suggest that Cumhuriyet would run a false story about a mosque in Turkey being hit by a cross-border rocket. I also think the edit summary that Turkish sources are inherently biased and not neutral due to strict media regulations by the AKP government is a strange turn of phrase - are they inherently biased or biased because of regulations? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two diffs of Turkish statements are perfectly fine RS-wise (one might argue against inclusion on other grounds, but not RS) - Turkish sources are more than fine for Turkish statements. The mosque is iffier - there are various things that might have NOT been covered by a Turkish sources regarding this strike, though the mosque itself was probably damaged - this would be better sourced from a non-Turkish source.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Cumhuriyet is fine but Xinhua has more details. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more of a matter of what sources we prefer. I'm okay with Turkish sources as long as they make official announcements and provide casualty statistics, but for more sensitive matters such as war crimes, we should always use more neutral and reliable sources. This means, for example, Reuters over Hurriyet and Independent over Cumhurriyet. As we all know, Turkey is undergoing strict regulations when it comes to reporting the operation (see this). All these news outlets in Turkey have to abide by "patriotic" guidelines or else their journalists get locked up. This effectively makes all these Turkish news outlets hopelessly biased and partial since they're forced to toe the AKP line. And this is not to disrespect the courageous journalists in Turkey who fight to the death (sometimes literally) for the truth to be revealed. Indeed, these people deserve to be commended. But we also have an obligation to serve the needs of Wikipedia's readership. They too deserve to be informed via impartial, independent, and neutral sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that media outlets have talking points distributed is not extraordinary, it happened in US media during the Iraq War also and was severely criticized then. What is unusual about Turkey is the "prior restraint" which is not allowed the United States - the Turkish government has explicitly said Turkish sources can't report on certain things. That does not make them unreliable for what they are reporting - and the two instances of removal of Turkish sources the sources were not used for anything questionable. The entire justification for removing them seems to be that they are Turkish sources - There is an argument to remove Hürriyet for the chemical weapons denial under WP:NEWSORGS as it is preferable to use the originating wire service (in this case Reuters) - but it was used to source an official government statement for which it is a reliable source, and the article itself is clear about this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Um I don’t remember seeing journalists in America getting locked up for criticizing the Iraqi War. To make such a comparison is highly deceiving. The fact of the matter is, for all of America’s flaws, the one thing that has always been consistently better than most countries has been the freedom of the press. Turkey is nowhere near that level of an open society where people can openly criticize their government, their president, and their actions. And it just got severely worse due to this strict “patriotic” regulation. You say: the Turkish government has explicitly said Turkish sources can't report on certain things. - and you know what I say? That’s the definition of being biased and hence not reliable. Please, just find better and more neutral sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was on my mobile so I couldn't link you to Prior restraint - I was naively hoping you would look it up or read my entire comment before replying. Yes, in Turkey it is criminal and that is a significant difference, which I emphasized in my previous comment. But this is not a forum to wax poetic about freedom of speech - in reality freedom of speech does protect a lot of smaller alternative sources that we don't use in our articles, like personal comments on Twitter, or blogs. But mainstream media sources are not excellent sources in any case while a war is ongoing, and in the US wartime coverage was shit, freedom of the press notwithstanding, which is well-attested to by a copious amount of academic literature. Embedded journalism in particularly was extensively studied and criticized. But in the years that followed better sources became available, and in time I hope better sources will become available for this article too, but right now we have media sources being reported during a time of conflict and we have to exercise good judgment using them. I'm not a huge fan of media sources in general, and this article is full of weak sources —Cumhuriyet and Hurriyet are still among the most reliable sources being used for this article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no neutral sources in a war. So we're left with two options here when dealing with controversial claims: 1) use sources from both sides of the conflict proportionally, or 2) only use neutral, secondary sources for such claims. I'd normally go with the first option, but in this particular case it would set a bad precedent, and someone complained above that "60% of the article is about arrests, while only 40% is actually about the conflict itself." That was quite a hyperbole, but something similar to that could definitely happen, considering the tons of conflicting reports and claims that surfaced ever since Olive Branch was announced. Would it be too big a deal to just rely on AFP, Reuters and other such agencies for the time being? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I can respond to this I would have to know why the editor who has objected to the use of Turkish media sources (EtienneDolet) is willing to use Turkish media sources when they source content that he wants to add to the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=824350841&oldid=824350521] but removed information about rocket attacks that was cited to Turkey's two leading newspapers [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin&diff=825337975&oldid=825336258]. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty stark difference between reports by Turkish news media outlets about Turkey's internal affairs as opposed to hotly contested information regarding war crimes within a very sensitive and propaganda prone conflict. If the Turkish state agencies and their regulated news outlets report of arrests happening, I don't see why we shouldn't believe them. They know who they arrest more than anybody else. In fact, major third-party news outlets report what the Turkish state-runned/state-controlled media announces all the time in that regards so there's no doubt that we should be taking what the government says seriously. And I've already said that Turkish sources should be used strictly for announcements, casualty figures, and non-contested information and that our use of these sources should also fall into a matter of preference. If there's a Hurriyet source that says the same thing as Reuters, then I'd much rather we use Reuters than Hurriyet. And that should apply towards announcements, casualty figures, and non-contested information as well. After all, the Hurriyet source itself might not portray the conflict in a neutral matter due to the Turkish state's draconian "patriotic" regulations. As for stuff about rocket attacks and war crimes, that stuff is highly sensitive material. I've removed the Turkish sources because they're not reliable and impartial enough to make such a claim. However, there recently have been sources introduced that appear to be neutral so I didn't bother removing them because that is how this article should present such sensitive information. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand your position, your opinion is that a staunchly anti-state Turkish left publication is a reliable and neutral source about government arrests (They know who they arrest more than anybody else.?!), but Cumhuriyet may be lying about rocket attacks? (highly sensitive? not reliable and impartial enough to make such a claim??) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * staunchly anti-state Turkish left publication - what did you want it to be? A staunchly Turkish state-runned right-wing publication? I don't get it. Besides, just because it's left-wing doesn't make it unreliable. And the fact that Evrensel is against Erdogan's government would actually make it even more reliable, not less. As far as I can remember, I chose Evrensel because Arslan's arrest was reported between Anadolu Agency, Yeni Safak, and Kurdistan24. All of which are partial sources. Evrsensel stood out as being the most impartial, hence most reliable in this case. The reporting is also based on internal Turkish affairs, rather than sensitive matters like war crimes. And let us not forget that reliability is based on a spectrum. Per WP:RS:
 * "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources."


 * And my goodness, this edit was from something like 2 weeks ago. I'm quite impressed that you rummaged all my edits just to find your one "Aha! Got you!" moment. But that's not even the case. And regards to Cumhurriyet, must I repeat myself? Turkish sources should not be used for sensitive matters such as war crimes. For more details into that argument, see my and other users' comments above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard for judging reliability of sources is not whether they agree with your political opinions. Evrsensel stood out as being the most impartial, hence most reliable in this case - being against Erodogan's government is not an accurate definition of impartial or reliable. I'm concerned that your response indicates that you believe a source is most impartial when you like it's political bias. Out of all the sources you listed, Anadolu Agency would be the most reliable for arrests - it is a state-run news agency, and should be attributed, but it is unlikely to lie or be mistaken about arrests that it is reporting. Seraphim System ( talk ) 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Syrian Democratic Forces
Why shouldn't SDF be in the infobox? There are a lot of sources saying they are there like the Yazidi units and IFB.

Takinginterest01 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The SDF are the official army of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, and are consequently listed in the order of battle article that is linked in the "units" section of the infobox. The Yezidi units and the IFB on the other side are NOT part of the Democratic Federation, and thus warrant separate mentioning. Applodion (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of "Ex-ISIS members" in TFSA ranks
Is there any evidence of Independent's report? It's only reported by Independent. The author is known with his anti-Turkey bias. Beshogur (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's from an RS written by a well-known award-winning journalist, so it's WP:DUE. Patrick Cockburn did some impressive investigative journalism into the topic which would give our readers a rare insight into who these fighters actually are. It's also information that's not easy to attain, which is what makes Cockburn an award-winning journalist. To merely dismiss him and his career for being "anti-Turkish", an entirely unfounded accusation, sounds like a case of WP:JDLI. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What about the text there. You keep deleting Turkish army statements because it's taking some space (I suppose). That text need to be shortened in any case. Beshogur (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not removing all Turkish army statements. The only ones that should be removed are the ones made by unreliable/partial sources regarding sensitive issues like war crimes. If these allegations are taken up by more reliable sources (i.e. Reuters, Independent, etc.) then we can add them. For example, the stuff about the Çalık Mosque remains because third-party reliable sources have taken that accusation seriously. Hence why I did not remove the claim. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

How did my edit violate copyright?
I added Armenia's stance with a reference to the article I don't see the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Your addition was word for word from the source. Just paraphrase it and you’ll be okay. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Baqir Brigade
I don't think they are part of NDF, they are part of a group called 'Local Defense Forces' which has a similar name but nothing suggests they are NDF. Baqir brigade is leading the Pro-Government operation in Afrin and is superior to NDF here. Takinginterest01 (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Aleppo 24
, please revert your edit. You can't say "Removed well known fake news platform Aleppo24" You should prove it first that Aleppo 24 isn't reliable and posting fake news. Beshogur (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Aleppo24 is well known for publishing fake news. Link: "Aleppo24 claims that no government forces are inside Afrin. We have enough pictures to see that they are in Afrin." Another fake news by Aleppo24: "No faction went to Idlib to fight against the HTS as claimed by Aleppo24". These are 2 examples I found in 2 minutes. There are many more fake news spread by Aleppo24 to support their pro-rebel bias. Have a nice day. Greek Hades 16:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek Hades (talk • contribs)


 * CNN is well known for publishing fake news. But doesn't mean that you can not use CNN as a source on wikipedia. SCWM and SOHR has published plenty of fake news yet those two are used as sources on this page so Aleppo24 will be used as a source too. Patetez (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Give a proof for you accusation about SOHR and SCWM. Wikipedia is not playground. You are not deciding alone about a source or srticle. Greek Hades 00:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek Hades (talk • contribs)


 * The decider is the community. Dear! Iulamgiha  Talk to me 02:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not your playground either Mr Greek. You should keep your anti-Turkish propaganda out of wiki. There were countless talks on wikipedia about how SOHR was an unreliable source on so many occasions. If you had followed this conflict closely you would have known this fact. So do your own search for SOHR. Because it's a very well known fact by everyone. And about SCWM, SCWM was extremely unreliable during the fighting in Deir ez-Zor. SCWM was almost always wrong when it was about SAA gains. People like Ivan Sidorenko has shown everyone how unreliable SCWM was during SAA's Deir ez-Zor Offensive. We all know that SCWM has sources inside YPG but when it comes to reports about SAA and rebels SCWM is one of the worst sources out there. Also we all know how much YPG loves propaganda and fake news. So even when SCWM reports about YPG he still tends to be unreliable from time to time because his sources are too high on their own Apoist, KCK style propaganda. Patetez (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Aleppo24 should be kept out of the infobox not out of political reasons, but because it's not notable enough to be mentioned by name in the infobox alongside the claims from parties to the conflict, or those of the SOHR. The Aleppo24 article seems to be relevant enough to add to be referenced, but not in the infobox as the website itself not a recognized authority for casualty claims. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree.Thank you! Iulamgiha  Talk to me 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If SCWM is used on infobox then Aleppo24 should be used on infobox too. Either we get rid of both Aleppo24 and SCWM as a source for infobox or both of them should stay at the infobox. Because as a source Aleppo24 is more notable and also more professional than SCWM. Patetez (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Aleppo24 should be used but not in the infobox. Its not notable enough for the infobox. More appropriate place would be to place it in the main body of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Attempted a compromise edit. Moved Aleppo24, as well as SCWM, to a newly-made casualties section. The claims that are left in the infobox are SOHR (which is generally considered highly reliable), as well as the individual combatant's claims. These claims are also mentioned in the casualties section. EkoGraf (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged abusing of Ypg militants
I have removed redundant information concerning the alleged abuse of Ypg militiamen. Both sentences are almost the same and use the same source. So it's the same content, and therefore redundant. This is the relevant source. Perhaps you can tell how it can be about two different incidents when the source is just used twice. Furthermore, the source seems quite unreliable to me, and maybe should be checked whether it should be used here. Akocsg (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the source. It talks about two different incidents. One concerning a female and another concerning a male fighter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Different colour for parts in Northern Syria, which Turkish military controlls
There should be in the file oft this article a different colour (maybe red) for that parts in northern Syria (north of Manbidsch and now in February beginning parts of region Afrin), which the turkish military controls. 178.11.3.97 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

SCWM unnecessary
SCWM is unnecessary, because there is already 3 seperate sources for the casualties to be reported, besides the owner of this site is known to have been a vile troll on Liveuamap. Source: https://twitter.com/badly_xeroxed/status/862716164530745344 Needbrains (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@GabrielShabo Agree. They have been not neutral in the past about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielShabo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Continuing from the up above section (which already talks about this subject), both SCWM and Aleppo24 (personal feelings regarding the sources aside) are a bit redundant to have in the infobox since we already have 3 sources on casualties in the infobox. Still, we have a situation where one side wants to keep SCWM, but remove Aleppo24, and another side that wants to keep Aleppo24, but remove SCWM. As an attempt to end the content dispute going on I made a compromise edit that Iulamgiha agreed to. I opened a new casualties section of the article and moved both the disputed SCWM and Aleppo24 estimates to there. At the end of the day, all estimates/claims need to be presented, but not all have the notability to deserve inclusion in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What about removing both? I have no idea where SCWM gets these numbers. Beshogur (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Iulamgiha  Talk to me 00:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Civilian deaths in Turkey caused by PKK/YPG/PYD/SDF and DAESH/ISIS militia
How about we also add reports of civilian deaths in Turkey, both Turkish and Syrian refugees, who were killed by terrorist missile attacks on Turkey's soil? Otherwise, Wikipedia will remain infamous for its bias. :) HEICOgel (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "9 civilians killed in Turkey[52] (2 Syrians)[53]" - It is literally stated directly in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. Can we add a picture to make the article balanced? HEICOgel (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For that, the picture would have to be copyright-free. Problem is, the border towns of Turkey are currently restricted for the media, so that groups that could produce copyright-free footage cannot go there. The best I could find was this VOA video, which interviews a man whose father was killed by a rocket attack - but it shows no injured and nothing destroyed. One the other side, the DFNS (PYD-led government) and the Turkish-backed rebels allow VOA and Qasioun News to operate in their territories, so that we get copyright-free footage from Afrin. In the best case, someone in a town hit by a rocket attack has taken an image of the damage and would upload it to Wikimedia. Applodion (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's biased here is the language that you're using (i.e. "who were killed by terrorist missile attacks on Turkey's soil?") Please be careful when editing in this project because it may appear that you're pushing a personal POV when it comes to this conflict. As for the pictures, the YPG is accused of killing far fewer civilians than the Turkish army and its rebels. If we are to put the same amount of photographs for each side, it would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. For every picture you have of the YPG being accused of killing civilians, I'd say we'd have to have five times more photographs depicting the Turkish army's killing of civilians to balance things out. Or else, our readership would be mislead into thinking both factions of the conflict are on equal trends when it comes to war crime reports and accusations. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Étienne Dolet, I have been following your writings. You definitely sound partial. I have heard of Wikipedia being biased. Now I know it is users/editors like you who defame it. Why don't you edit other unbalanced articles where paramilitary groups are not referred to as terrorist organizations for fear of being "controversial"? Or try fixing some extreme group's site where they are referred to as terrorists. I'm not going to do your job for you. But you sure need NOT interfere with topics that you are heavily emotional about. Stop attacking other users. Take Applodion as an example of a neutral editor. :) HEICOgel (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Rajo and Shayk Hadid
These towns are captured by TFSA. There's a reuters report. I think SOHR means Rajo district not the town center. Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The Reuters report cites the Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim claiming their forces had captured the town, while Reuters is also citing (in the same report) SOHR who is saying the Turks control 70 percent of the town. And Reuters is pretty clear both (Yildirim and SOHR) are talking about the town, not the district. We can not choose one claim over another from the same report and present it as fact. Per WP policy all POVs are presented. And thus we have noted that the Turks are claiming they control it, while SOHR is saying they control 70 percent. Today, we had two new reports from SOHR. One (from this morning) reaffirmed that yesterday's TFSA assault on Rajo had failed and the town was still bombarded. The second (from a few hours ago) said the TFSA is controlling large parts of Rajo, but not the whole town and reaffirmed the only town the TFSA has captured since the start of the Afrin operation is still only Bulbul. In the second report, SOHR also confirmed the TFSA has entered Shayk Hadid. As soon as SOHR has confirmed the capture of Rajo (which is a possibility by the end of the day) we will make the necessary changes. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Confirmed and added. EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So now we have way too many text just about the capture of rajo (On 3 March, the Turkish-led forces said they had captured Rajo,[158] one of the major Kurdish strongholds in western Afrin. It was reported that Turkish-led forces quickly breached its defenses and captured it in an hour.[159] However, the SOHR reported that the town was still contested,[160] although the TFSA captured 70 percent of it.[158] The TFSA/TSK also claimed capturing six villages, including two on the Jinderes district axis, as well as the Bafilyun mountain west of Azaz, making quick gains in recent days.[161] The next day, Rajo was still coming under heavy Turkish bombardment as the TFSA was attempting to take full control of the town.[162] The SDF confirmed pro-Turkish forces had entered the town and that clashes were continuing during the morning.[163] Later in the day, the SOHR reported large parts of Rajo were captured, while the TFSA had also entered Shaykh al-Hadid.[164] On 5 March, Rajo was confirmed by the SOHR to had been captured by the TFSA.[8])

How should it be fine tuned? Needbrains (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018
Hey,

The total casualties per Turkey has been changed from 41 to 43. The latest official Turkish casualties was given by the Turkish media and Turkish military as 41 killed. Today 1 soldier died from his wounds which makes it 42 killed, not 43. See source: I hope that this can be fixed. Fxxvmeisteren (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ToThAc (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent events
Please do not remove new events, I have updated water supply and internet cut off, and Erdogan's announcements. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New fork article
Anyone else in favour of merging The Battle for Afrin City here? The Battle of Afrin is the whole point of this military operation, so there's no point in creating a new article just for the battle in the city itself. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. See below. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

about Independent report
That has nothing to do with composition of forces. Also I don't see any war crime. The report is claiming a possible ethnic cleansing. While it didn't happened. The quote is not a war crime either, maybe the content. Beshogur (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why did you gloss over the fact that there's a video of jihadist fighters threatening to cut off heads of innocent Kurds who don't subscribe to their extremist views? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And? There's no proof that the video is real. Have you seen any headcutting event? That text is nothing but showing Turkey bad as possible, since Cockburn is biased and known for his anti-Turkey view. Ex-ISIS members circlejerk and this is gone too far. You're just fooling the readers. I'm expecting other editors view on this issue as well. Beshogur (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "There's no proof that the video is real" is your personal opinion. But Wikipedia doesn't go by what Beshogur thinks is real or fake, we simply reflect what reliable sources say. Claiming that Cockburn, a renowned award-winning journalist, is "biased and known for his anti-Turkey view" is also your personal opinion, especially given that you've provided no RSs whatsoever to back your claim. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you've put the quote of Rami. Does Rami decide that a video is real or not. My point stands. Are there other sources than Independent? Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Beshogur, the Rami quote was published by an RS, that's why it's WP:DUE. Whether you think Rami is right or wrong is your personal opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A "threat video" is not a war crime. This should be removed. Tradedia talk 22:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The gist of the article is not so much the video, but the composition of ISIS and jihadist fighters that have been discovered within the ranks of the Turkish backed rebel fighters. If such accusations are taken seriously by reliable third party sources like the Independent, then we should also take it seriously too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not contest that we should talk about the jihadist elements. However, there should be balance and avoidance of undue weight. This is a section about “Composition of forces”, yet the whole content is about accusations of jihadism and western fighters fighting with SDF. The main article for this section is listed as “Order of battle for Operation Olive Branch”, yet there are not even the most basic elements about the composition of forces. Most of this section is now based on The Independent. The Independent is owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev. It represents a specific point of view that needs to not be given an undue weight. The section needs to be re-written to add the basics of composition of forces and shorten and summarize the part from The Independent. Tradedia talk 07:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Help
Please add padlock to the edit page h5hs is being vandalised by pro ypg terrorist extremist


 * You are vandalizing the page by changing Turkish to YPG. Do you have a source that it's YPG not the Turks? And why are you deleting information based on reliable sources? Don't accuse people of vandalizing when you've been so busy vandalizing. Letupwasp (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Battle for Afrin City"
I've proposed the deletion of the article "The Battle for Afrin City" here, as the article seems to talk about a future event and covers nothing separate from this article (and some information/sources have been copied from here). GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Should definitely be deleted. The title isn't even standardised. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen  ( Têkilî min ) 07:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The title was changed a while ago - it's Battle of Afrin City - it is standard, except for the "city" part, as there is confusion between Afrin (Canton) and Afrin (city) - makes it clearer for the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

TFSA name change to Olive Branch (OB) forces or Syrian National Army (SNA)
Im going to change the tfsa nonsense naming to the OB or SNA, because if pkk can call themselves dfns, sdf or whatever then olive branch forces can also call themselves whatever they want/like. Needbrains (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This was disussed before. First of all "TFSA" is not "nonsense" as many media outlets use this name or something similar, while "National Army" is mostly used in rebel or pro-Turkey media. But that is not the main reason. Instead, nobody has so far provided proof from a reliable, impartial source that the different TFSA factions have been completely merged into the "National Army" - If that were the case, I would support calling them "National Army", but so far most groups within the TFSA continue to maintain distinct identities. Some, like the Hamza Division seem to really support the idea of a united "National Army", but others (mostly Islamist/Salafi groups) do not. The difference between the DFNS and the National Army is thus that the former is an existing, functioning proto-state, while the latter is a project that is not yet completed. Applodion (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be true for SNA, but not for "olive branch forces" As every faction fighting in this operation consider themselves part of operation olive branch. So im going to change TFSA nonsense (it is nonsense cause the factions have never called themselves TFSA) to OB forces. Needbrains (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Applodion. WP policy is clear on this issue. Common names are the ones used by Wikipedia and National Army isn't it. EkoGraf (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So what about "OB forces", if we use this one then there is also no need anymore to distinguish between TSK and rebel fighters. Needbrains (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would have to be established that that's the common name (among international sources). I don't think that's the case at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is operation olive branch hasn't gotten that much international attention yet. I think after the operation is over more articles about the operation will be written and this article can be improved in quality, especially the "offensive" section of the page Needbrains (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The thing is operation olive branch hasn't gotten that much international attention yet". No offense, but that is not correct. This operation has received much media attention, while there are regular protests due to this operation in countries where a substantial Kurdish, Turkish and Syrian diaspora live (for example Germany). This article also gets a lot of traffic. Applodion (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah i could have described it better, but what i meant is that there are almost no analytical reports about the offensive that takes place. Most media attention this operation got is as you said about protests, fights, arrests and other boogeymen-like reports. There are almost no informative reports about the actual fighting that takes place. For instance, Belligerent X attacked Belligerent Y successfully and captured a "very strategic" position that could be crucial for the outcome of the operation. These kind of reports are unfortunately almost non existent Needbrains (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Olive branch forces reached the gates of afrin city, but this article doesn't state how they got there, which tactic they used, what materials they used etc etc. Compared to other SCW pages on wikipedia this article's quality is unfortunately poor. Needbrains (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018
One more soldier died yesterday which makes the total per Turkey killed 45: Lisandro62836 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Link to Battle of Afrin City
I would like to add a link from this page to Battle of Afrin City. I know some editors GodsPlaaaaan on this page are currently pushing for the page to be deleted, but I hazard a guess, considering there are hundreds of thousands of people in the city currently, and the Kurds have pulled back to defend it, it is clearly a notable event. Wikipedia pages need inbound links, and its part of this campaign, so needs to be linked to from this page. Also note, title has been changed, "City' is used in the title to make it easier for the user to differentiate between the city battle, and the wider canton, as they are confusingly both called Afrin. However, if anyone has any better suggestions for title, speak forth! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC) If anyone has an issue with me adding the link in a See also section, please speak up. It would seem obvious that the two articles are connected - this is likely to be the major battle of the operation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Afrin Hospital Not Hit
http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/17-march-turkish-army-showing-uav-video-of-afrin-main-hospital

Afrin Hospital has not been hit and no-one died there. Repeatably, numerous YPG and SOHR statements have been debunked by reverse image searches or TSK drone footage. All claims by SOHR and YPG need to be vetted. Tgoll774 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Hospital was not attacked (and backed by Turkish drone footage) was challenged by a number of sources. They stated that Turkish sources had identified the wrong (undamaged) building as the hospital, in the drone footage. The *actual* hospital, *was* damaged, and the damage is visible in the drone footage. see here for more detail: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/03/19/did-turkey-bomb-afrin-hospital/Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

German reaction
I'd like to raise awareness to an edit inserted recently into this article. It was about a possible phone call by Steinmeier to the Turkish president about "common efforts against terror". However, the only source to this we have is the Turkish media itself, no one else confirmed this call, its content or context so far. I have the following obligations: 1) At the moment, this is not verified knowledge, but a speculation. 2) It is not clear if this is relevant in the context of the Turkish military operation in Afrin since we don't have any further information than the claim by "Turkish media". User Nov3rd17 tried to build a connection to the military operation by claiming Steinmeiers phone call would undermine Angela Merkels critique but this fell short because of WP:OR. I'd like to remove this sentence from the article as soon as possible. What do the others think? --TheRandomIP (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Julianus Church not hit
here Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources claim
Here we go again with our privileged editor. Firstly, you can't just claim your sources are reliable and others' are not. This is blatant bias. If you start claiming the sources I add are unreliable then we might as well remove half the text in Wikipedia!

Secondly, the claims that ISIS fighters did not exist in the area is an allegation. There are reports of ISIS prisoners being freed by the YPG/PYD to fight the Turkish army in Afrin. How is this a POV text? I could claim the same for what is currently mentioned here. It just doesn't make sense.

Thirdly, the one report that the residents fled or there was looting as if to imply all the Turkish-backed rebels were involved is intangible. I found two sources (1 and 2) that claim most civilians remained and were happy for the operation. How will you explain these reports? Oh, by claiming they are unreliable sources? It's not going to work. HEICOgel (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Daily Sabah is AKP journal. Director is Erdogan's friend, often at the palace and assisting to meetings. Yug (talk)  14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

PKK in Afrin
How can we still deny that while even ANF (Media of PKK) says that his fighter is killed in Afrin. here Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's it? That's your ultimate proof? But yet, it's just one soldier who happens to align himself with the PKK. To me it's nothing more than some individual who happens to have an allegiance to the PKK and has voluntarily fought in Afrin. But this doesn't mean the PKK ordered him to do so or that he was part of some concerted effort by the PKK to fight in Afrin or something. So to infer from that article that the "PKK IS IN AFRIN!" is really a step too far. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Says an user who claims ex-ISIS fighters are fighting on Turkish side. I say even their own agencies saying THEIR fighters are fighting in Afrin. Yes this is my proof. "some individual who happens to have an allegiance to the PKK and has voluntarily fought in Afrin" does mean that their group is fighting in Afrin as well. If that wasn't the case you should remove all small groups from the belligerents. Beshogur (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, I never claimed anything. I just reflected what a reliable source said (Al-Masdar even has pictures of some them). Secondly, does mean that their group is fighting in Afrin as well. - this is where you're terribly wrong. It doesn't mean their "group" is fighting. These are just actions of a lone individual (a lone actor if you will). Say, for example, an ISIS fighter joins the Turkish-backed rebels. We're not to say ISIS is a belligerent in the conflict, would we? The same rule applies here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well ISIS fighters doesn't fight on TFSA side, it's Cockburn's own delusional story. Believe in whatever you want. It's also a claim, the report says "accused" while it's confirmed that PKK fighters are fightin in Afrin. Also AMN is a terrible source, it's on the same level with Yeni-Akit. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well ISIS fighters doesn't fight on TFSA side, it's Cockburn's own delusional story. - that's your personal opinion, and should remain as such. Believe in whatever you want. - you don't even know what my "beliefs" are. Like I said, my additions merely reflect what reliable sources say about the topic. It's also a claim, the report says "accused" while it's confirmed that PKK fighters are fightin in Afrin. - claims can still be inserted in articles, provided that they are reliably sourced. Also, PKK fighters aren't in Afrin, but individual lone acting fighters who happen to have an allegiance to the PKK are. There should be such a distinction made. Also AMN is a terrible source, it's on the same level with Yeni-Akit. - I wouldn't say terrible. Especially not as horrendous as Yeni Akit. I mean, not even close. AMN is a semi-reliable source when it comes to Wikipedia's standards, as outlined by the consensus reached over it. Besides, AMN is not the only one that appears to have published those photos (Muraselon also published them). Say what you want about the sources. The pictures are pretty damning, to say the least. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle
This material is relevant to the background of the conflict and reliably sourced. Don't see why it shouldn't be added. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, it has nothing to do with the paragraph itself has nothing to do with background information. The article doesn't even mention about Turkey-PKK conflict. Also it's an opinion by random people. Should we add every statement of SOHR? Beshogur (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about Afrin and Turkey's role in the Syria conflict up until the start of the conflict. And remember, it's not a Turkey-PKK issue, it's a Turkey-Kurdish issue. "Random people"? It's the opinion of the head of the SOHR. Hence, reliable and WP:DUE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Topic sentences are a pretty basic fundamental of good writing. What is currently in the article is this:
 * "Despite this, the CIA named the PYD as the 'While the PKK has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, the United States' position on the YPG is that it is not a terrorist organization, a stance that has generated much conflict between the two NATO allies. Syrian wing' of the PKK in its World Factbook on 23 January 2018.[99] However, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) remarked that 'Turkey supports anything that harms the Kurds,' and stated that Turkey has consistently been allowing jihadist fighters to cross the Turkish border into Syria to fight Kurdish forces since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War."
 * And the following paragraph is linked to this for continuity. ("The offensive came amid growing tension between the Turkish and American governments over the latter's support of the Syrian Democratic Forces,") - it seems indisputable the the quote is offtopic inserted into this paragraph. This quote, which has only been reported in one source, has been taken out of context and inserted into a background paragraph that neutrally the dispute between the Turkey and US regarding US support for YPG - Etienne's justification above is it's not a Turkey-PKK issue, it's a Turkey-Kurdish issue.. Per WP:NPOV Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. - agreed. Which is why the DW source describes the dispute as "Turkey supports anything that harms the Kurds." But what he didn't say was "Turkey supports anything that harms the PKK." See the difference? The quote is in reference to the Kurdish issue at large. So if you think it can be placed in a better place, then suggest it. But don't remove it outright because it sounds like you WP:JDLI. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that quote isn't even remotely about what is being discussed in the article. The question Rahman is answering asked by DW is Why would Turkey want to help Russia and the Syrian regime? Turkey opposes Assad, after all. There is no dispute amongst sources here, only between the US and Turkey about YPG. Removing your WP:OR from the article is not WP:JDLI - the reason for removal was clearly stated in the edit summary multiple times, but you are pretending you don't seem to understand that the source does not support inclusion in this paragraph. I didn't see a better place for it, but if you can think of one move it there. Don't keep edit warring it into a paragraph that is not about Turkey assisting Assad/Syria and try to make the quote be about whatever you think it should be about rather than what the source actually says. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That quote is completely out of place in that paragraph. ED, that's not good writing: stick to the topic. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many see the PKK issue in Turkey as part of a larger Kurdish issue. Hence why I believe the quote is relevant to the subject at hand. I am always willing to move it to another section in the article provided that Seraphim stops removing it outright each and every time. There's a difference between discussing to move it elsewhere than to remove it consistently. That's not being very constructive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Mon cher Etienne, many people see many things (and I think everyone sees what you say many people see), but I don't see what this oh so general statement is doing in a rather specific paragraph in a specific article. Even if the sourcing, the source, etc. was impeccable, it just doesn't make sense here. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, Drmies. Because it's relevant. The source itself talks about the background of the Afrin situation. Turkey's Kurdish problems in Syria isn't limited to what's been going on in Afrin. To say that it does would be misleading towards our readership. I'm fine with moving the sentence to another place (which I already did), but to keep on removing it outright is, like I said, not productive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there are probably stronger sources for this from secondary sources, if it is not already covered sufficiently in the article. An interview is usually treated as a primary source and quotes from a primary source should not be taken out of context to support an WP:OR metatheory about the invasion. This source is addressing Turkish-Russian cooperation, not the general background of the operation, and the theory of the person being interviewed is that Turkey is willing to cooperate with Russia because "Turkey would support anything that harms the Kurds" (my paraphrase) - something like this definitely needs much stronger sourcing then a single quote from one person in an interview. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, what about this source: ? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it adds that is not already in the article? - I don't think it improves articles to load them up with POV quotes from advocacy organizations. The background section could be expanded to include information about Turkey's withdrawal from Aleppo, and the widely reported strategic aim of preventing these regions from linking, but I don't see what this particular quote adds that can't be restated in our own words based on summarizing the majority view of available WP:RS. In fact, the part of the quote that hasn't been included in the article is the part that contains most of the relevant information: "Over a year ago, Turkey withdrew its armed forces from eastern Aleppo, which then was surrounded by President al-Assad’s troops to use them against the YPG and prevent Kurdish-controlled Afrin linking up with other Kurdish areas. By withdrawing its troops from Aleppo, Turkey effectively handed over the city to Damascus" Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, because it's relevant and reliably sourced. This explanation by the head of the SOHR explains why Turkey is in Syria in the first place. He's among the leading voices when it comes to the Syrian Civil War and his statement gives the Afrin affair a much broader context to the topic than just "Over a year ago...etc. etc.). Remember, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict is not just a year old, neither is Turkey's involvement in the area. Turkey's lack of supervision (to say the least) when it comes to jihadists entering Syria from Turkey to fight the Kurds is critical to understanding situation Kurds find themselves in. If you want to restate it in our own words, we can easily just say something like: "The head of the SOHR stated that Turkey only true enemy in Syria are the Kurds and that Turkey has allowed jihadists to enter Syria from Turkey to fight Kurds." Does that work for you? 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me that the Kurdish-Turkish conflict is over a year old Etienne, but I am the one who added the paragraph that you inserted this quote into. I think this article has already placed more than due weight on the opinions of advocacy organizations. This quote from SOHR has not been widely reported, so I am inclined to agree with above comments that its inclusion is not WP:DUE for an article of this length. If it is a HRW report that is reported by many news outlets that is different, but the article is already pretty long and there are entire disproportionately long sections that are almost exclusively dedicated to the opinions of human rights organizations, much of it sourced to primary sources (Directly to the organizations themselves). That content can be summarized more effectively than it currently is, but this is one of those cases where not every detail needs to be added piecemail and more thought should go into creating a readable article that summarizes the majority view of reliable sources. Perhaps some of this content can be spun out into more specific articles? Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be spun out in more "specific" articles because the sources deals specifically with Turkey's business in Afrin. What we have here is something that is relevant and above all important for our readers' understanding of the conflict. Like I said, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict did not start nor will it not end with Afrin. It's decades, if not centuries old. Turkey's stance against the Kurds is well-documented and Afrin is not mutually exclusive in that regard. So one sentence does not hurt to briefly touch up on that. It indeed improves the article by allowing our readers to understand the broader context of Turkish-Kurdish relations. And to dismiss the SOHR as some kind of advocacy organization is seriously wrong. The SOHR is considered a reliable source within this encyclopedia, whether or not you see it as an advocacy group (which it is not, it merely reports the conflict). I've already provided a highly reliable secondary source: . A simple succinct sentence, like the one I exemplified above, could easily work. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To restate what I said above restated in our own words based on summarizing the majority view of available WP:RS, not restate what "The head of the SOHR stated" in our own words. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, besides the DW, one such available RS is the Stockholm Center for Freedom source which says "Rami Abdel Rahman, who runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Germany’s Deutsche Welle on Saturday that Turkish government’s only genuine enemy in Syria is the Kurds." That's a summary of the interview, not words from the interview itself. So we can indeed summarize that depiction as: "The head of the SOHR stated that Turkey only true enemy in Syria are the Kurds and that Turkey has allowed jihadists to enter Syria from Turkey to fight Kurds." If you have better wording, let me know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be about what the head of the SOHR said at all, but that similar content may be found in the analysis of other sources. You are really pushing Rami Abdul Rahman pretty hard here, even saying that SOHR is not an advocacy group. I agree that SOHR is generally WP:RS for attributed statements about human rights in the Syrian conflict - that doesn't mean that Rami Abdul Rahman opining about the broader conflict and Turkey's military objectives is due for inclusion, as neither he nor SOHR are considered authorities on that type of analysis. Summarizing the majority view of secondary sources is one of the hardest things about writing Wikipedia articles, but I don't think it is helping that you seem to be taking this personally where you say And to dismiss the SOHR as some kind of advocacy organization is seriously wrong. for example... Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if SOHR is, as you say, an advocacy group, we're not using SOHR as a source. We are using DW and Stockholm Center for Freedom as sources. I also don't understand why you keep saying that I'm using the SOHR as a source here. So I don't get why you're pushing so hard for the advocacy card yourself. So again, I'm sure you'd agree that Stockholm Center for Freedom is a reliable source. Therefore, I'm sure we can trust their summation of the interview (i.e. "Rami Abdel Rahman, who runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Germany’s Deutsche Welle on Saturday that Turkish government’s only genuine enemy in Syria is the Kurds.") A reliable source that describes a relevant background is indeed critical for this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what the source is being used for - the more important issue is that this is a cherry picked quote from a non-expert source. SOHR is widely used by the press as a source for facts about human rights abuses on the ground in the Syrian conflict, but Rami Abdel Rahman is a political activist. He doesn't have any academic qualifications, he has never held an academic position as far as I know, and he is not an expert on Turkey or the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Not every quote from every newspaper article needs to be included in Wikipedia. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think most readers, including myself, want to read a clear, concise well-written summary that will cover the main points of a topic and then decide for themselves what they want to follow up on by following the wikilinks - as opposed to a flood of "stuff Etienne likes" - one of the most difficult things about writing is having enough respect for your readers to summarize, imo - I am concerned about readability and attention span of readers and being able to accept feedback from readers outside your head is an important part of collaborative editing, I think. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) Okay, that's just your personal opinion. Look, if you have a problem with the SOHR itself, take it to the WP:RSN. But that's beyond the point, because we're not to use SOHR as a source. We are to use the Stockholm Center for Freedom as a source which happens to quote SOHR. Apparently, the DW, Stockholm Center for Freedom, and many many other reliable news outlets including the NYT, Guardian, BBC, and etc. take what Rami and the SOHR say seriously, and Wikipedia shouldn't be of no exception. We all have personal opinions towards various prime sources reporting the SCW, but we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. So if you think it's problematic that the Stockholm Center for Freedom or DW quotes the SOHR for a matter related to the Syrian or Turkish-Kurdish conflict, take it to the RSN or write them a letter or something. But until then, Wikipedia considers these to be reliable sources and useful for the project at large (and that does not exclude the SOHR as well). Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is getting repetitive, you still haven't explained why this should be included. You just keep repeating that DW and SCF are WP:RS over and over again, without any indication that you understand or respect the concerns that several editors here have raised during this discussion, and are in fact ascribing motives to me that are radically different from the ones I have taken the time to explain to you in good faith which are primarily related to readability and article quality. Multiple editors have pointed out to you that the issue here is not whether the sources are reliable, but whether it should be included in the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you still haven't explained why this should be included.? I hope you're joking here. I have said this is relevant to the conflict, and specifically the background of the conflict, many many times in this thread. And multiple editors? Where are they? You are acting as if the entire community in Wikipedia is against this sentence from being included when in fact all it I see here is Drmies who did not say it should be removed entirely. He simply said it doesn't belong in that paragraph. Beshogur is the only user besides you that wants it removed. So that's not "multiple edits" by any stretch of the imagination. 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * as opposed to a flood of "stuff Etienne likes" You know, I could easily turn that around and say this article shouldn't be a "drought of stuff Seraphim dislikes" because it's really not helpful to this discussion. Even though it appears you WP:JDLI because every time your concerns are addressed, you move the goal posts. For one, you asked for a reliable secondary source. Once I gave that to you via Stockholm Center for Freedom, then you asked what's the point of adding it. Then you claimed that SOHR is an advocacy group without providing any evidence to support such a bold claim (even though we're not even using SOHR as a source). Now you you're concerned about readability. I mean the multitudes of excuses here can only be reminiscent of WP:JDLI. I've more than one modified my comments and proposals in this thread to reach consensus. But if this continues, I may have to seek advice in a different forum. Either that, or we work constructively on a simple and suffice sentence that would be ideal for us both here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I neither like nor dislike this personally but I don't think it is an improvement to the article. For me, those are different things. I did not ask for a reliable secondary source - I asked for you to consult other WP:RS to see if the critical content of this quote about Turkey seeking to prevent the territories from being linked could be added to the article based on the majority view of WP:RS. When you did not understand what I was asking for, I explained that a well-written summary is more readable and produces a better quality article then recounting many disparate details that are selected based on personal preference/POV instead of being an important fact that is part of a secondary analysis. That didn't work either, because it seems that you don't believe summarizing the majority view in WP:RS and readability are related concepts and instead have chosen to believe that I am trying to trick you by "moving the goalposts"- JDLI by the way is an accusation about personal views of mine that you have no knowledge of, but are assuming, that because I don't think this is an improvement it must be because of POV - that is incorrect, and you should stop doing it. I will go look for the WP:RS that I suggested at the beginning of the discussion when I said I think there are probably stronger sources for this from secondary sources - SCF was not what I was asking for, it is just a repeat of the same quote. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You specifically said: "I think there are probably stronger sources for this from secondary sources..." Then I gave you one. And now you say, SCF was not what I was asking for, it is just a repeat of the same quote. Okay, so now are you implying that the SCF is not a reliable secondary source? Secondly, it's not a repeat of the same quote. The SCF article provides a summation of what Rami said. Read the article, it says: "Rami Abdel Rahman, who runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Germany’s Deutsche Welle on Saturday that Turkish government’s only genuine enemy in Syria is the Kurds." Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that maybe you don't understand what I mean by secondary analysis - I'm not asking you for one source for a quote, a fact that is not part of any analysis - I'm trying to summarize the majority view in secondary WP:RS and provide a summary of the essential facts that have been used as part of that analysis. Additionally it looks like Rami's analysis was wrong, as it is contradicted by more recent sources: Friend or foe? Assad quietly aids Syrian Kurds against Turkey via Reuters Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You specifically said: "I think there are probably stronger sources for this from secondary sources..." Are you retracting the word "sources" and replacing it with "analyses"? And who said analyses are the only types of sources that should be included in this article? And even in that regard the SCF is considered an analysis. Nevertheless, all we need is a reliable source(s) that can provide and brief and succinct summary of the interview. Who says the SCF does not do that job already? The SCF, in its own words, describes Rami's quote as such. It's not directly from Rami's words himself. The short description by the SCF about what Rami said is indeed a summary of essential facts in and of itself. As for the Reuters article, that doesn't contradict Rami at all. For one, it doesn't even mention Rami or the SOHR. And two, that's just a personal interpretation of the source that you've in some odd way tied to this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you serious right now? The policy is WP:OR - following secondary analysis is a major core policy, "analyses" is not a type of source...primary and tertiary should be used in a more limited way for basic non-controversial facts and tertiary can help evaluate due weight in some situations ... I assumed you were already familiar with these policies. Your response above is garbled. For one, it doesn't even mention Rami or the SOHR.??? That's your response? I would suggest following sources with more detailed analysis like - it doesn't have to mention Rami. Maybe you should add this to Rami Abdel Rahman instead. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am very serious. What makes you think the SCF source is not a secondary analysis already? From the source: "Rami Abdel Rahman, who runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Germany’s Deutsche Welle on Saturday that Turkish government’s only genuine enemy in Syria is the Kurds" sounds like a perfectly reasonable secondary analysis to Rami's quote. That's your response? Yes, it is. Where's anything about Rami or SOHR in that source? How does that source disprove the claim made by Rami that Turkey opened up the gates to allow jihadists fight Kurds in Syria? How does it disprove Rami's claim that Turkey is in Syria because it wants to harm Kurds? You've made no explanations in that regard. All you did was link a source and claimed that this somehow refutes Rami when it doesn't even mention him and even if it didn't, it doesn't even refute any of his points. And now same with the Al-Monitor article. Why do you keep throwing random sources around as if they're going to disprove Rami's quote for some reason? These sources do not in any way directly confront, refute, or negate what Rami and the SOHR have to say. So just because your personal interpretation of these sources for some odd reason make you think so, doesn't mean we should all follow suit. Remember, we're not here to analyze our personal interpretations of sources, rather we should reflect what the sources say in a NPOV way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The content of the article should follow the sources, not the other way around. You are right - none of these sources mention Rami which is why several editors have challenged inclusion of this content as WP:UNDUE. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Uhhhh, what? Can you clarify? This is the weirdest thing I’ve heard. You’re saying that we shouldn’t add this analysis of Rami’s quote because an article by Reuters or Al-Monitor ‘’’didn’t’’’ happen to cite it? What are you even talking about? Which editor, besides you, has claimed this rather bizarre notion that just because Al-Monitor and Reuters doesn’t mention something about the SOHR that it should be excluded? This is absurd. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Etienne, at this point I think you need to review Wikipedia's core policies, including WP:UNDUE. I have been pretty patient about this, but it is becoming tiresome at this point. More than one editor has said this is undue. The policy is linked - if you don't know what that means, please review the policy before continuing this discussion and be prepared to address the policy and explain why it is due for inclusion. (Hint: DW is a reliable source does not address whether the edit is due for inclusion.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However, WP:DUE does not mean throwing around sources and saying something doesn't belong in the article because those sources don't mention anything about it. That's a rather bizarre understanding of DUE. And again, there's only one user that wanted it entirely removed and that was Beshogur. Yet, Beshogur hasn't participated in the discussion since March 28. Also, you keep pointing to DW, when I have since provided other secondary sources such as the Stockholm Center for Freedom. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it might help if you started to think of WP:DUE as a policy about WP:RS - the majority view of WP:RS determines what is WP:DUE, not what you feel is relevant or "critical" to the article and not one source that supports your POV - is this the majority view of WP:RS? I have also noticed a rather unusual amount of reliance on SOHR in other sections of the article, to the point where the article seems to be promoting SOHR (wikilinked repeatedly, etc.) - I have started a discussion about this, and a citation to a pro-PKK publication in another section. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're changing the subject by talking about other sections now. The case still stands here. SOHR is not the one being used in this particular addition. And even if it were, I don't see why that's a problem. SCF is a perfectly reliable secondary source. And how does adding SCF or DW to this article "support my POV"? These aren't my words but the words of Rami, the SCF, and DW hence why it's relevant and critical to add it to the article to elaborate to our readership that the Turkish involvement in Syria is not a new affair. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Etienne, you said And even if it were, I don't see why that's a problem. SCF is a perfectly reliable secondary source. - if you do not understand what the WP:UNDUE policy is about - summarizing the majority view of WP:RS as opposed to finding one source to support content that you think is relevant for reasons independent of summarizing the majority view of multiple reliable sources - ie not neutral, or what I am calling POV - then I think you should take some time, step back, don't make this about me or "winning" this discussion and review our basic policies, and then try to apply them in discussions to collaborate with other editors and improve articles. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of that quote is a minority view? Are you claiming that no one has reported about jihadists making it into Syria from the Turkey border? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please state clearly what it is you want to add to the article and what are the sources supporting it? I do not support adding more SOHR opinion to the article. This article is not about what SOHR thinks of the Afrin conflict, and there is too much from this organization in the article already. It might be helpful to keep this part of the WP:NPOV policy in mind: For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already said that a simple note would be suffice. Something like: "The head of the SOHR stated that Turkey only true enemy in Syria are the Kurds and that Turkey has allowed jihadists to enter Syria from Turkey to fight Kurds." Maybe even shorten it to just add the jihadists entering Syria part. There's lots of sources that do point to that before and after the Afrin conflict. So if you're willing, we can just add the second part of that sentence for the sake of reaching consensus. Its significant to understanding Turkey's extensive involvement in Syria vis-a-vis the Kurds. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the use of SOHR as a source for this article needs to be reduced. I don't know how significant it is, but I don't see any reason to repeatedly emphasize SOHR if there are other sources for what you want to add, which you say there are. Since you agreed not to pursue the insertion of this edit to get your article ban lifted, do you mind self-reverting and removing the edit now? Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should be reduced and I also don't think that reason alone is sufficient for removal. With that said, I also don't have a rough idea how much one source should be used or not used. However, the discussion isn't even about the SOHR but of secondary sources such as SCF. At any rate, I am offering this proposal. We use SCF instead of DW/SOHR which was the secondary source that you requested from the beginning. So would it be okay to just go ahead and just add: "The head of the SOHR stated that Turkey has allowed jihadists to enter Syria from Turkey to fight Kurds." Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We can use this source...: "for many years, Turkey allowed its murderous zealots to cross its porous border into Syria." Is that okay? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This source is an opinion article. The SCF article is very low quality, unfortunately and this is the exact same proposal you made at the start of this discussion, now you are just repeating yourself. You agreed to drop this as a condition of having the article ban rescinded—and by agreed I mean you said that this was "resolved", and now you are making the same proposal you did at the start of the discussion. Please keep your word, self-revert and drop this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have said that I'm working on a proposal: . If you think SCF is "very low quality", why do you think that way? If you seriously think so, I suggest you take it to the RSN. But it's reliable until proven otherwise. Also, why is the Guardian source going to be dismissed merely as an opinion piece? Accusations against Turkey for allowing jihadists into Syria is not limited to that Guardian article. See these sources: [. Al-Monitor called it a "jihadist highway". If you'd like, I propose just using the Al-Monitor source since you used it in this discussion (assuming that it's reliable) and just say "Turkey has been long accused of allowing jihadist fighters to cross the border into Syria". [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because opinion pieces are likely to be challenged and it is more likely to reach consensus if you use stronger sources. I'm not sure which Al Monitor source you mean. The article you cited above is from 2014, so no, I don't think it can be used for this article. Was this what you meant when you told I'd say it's practically resolved? The articles you are proposing to use are from 2014-2015 and the edit you are proposing to add is WP:OR...  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because A) I'm not adding the DW source again. B) I have proposed a modification to the wording and a new source to the material. I've added these sources, which are indeed old, but still relevant to the discussion because we are having because I wanted to show you how Turkey has a long history of this open border policy. So it's not some new accusation. I think the Guardian source is fine. Per WP:BIASED, it can be attributed to The Guardian or even by Owen Jones. But I'd still prefer the SCF source because Rami's voice on the Syrian conflict is more respected. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should clear this up with NeilN. He logged I'd say it's practically resolved before you added that you were going to continuing pressing this on talk. You are proposing a partial revert of the disputed content - arguably the most controversial part. I think it is a bad sign if you told an admin that something was "practically resolved" and then it turns out it's not resolved at all because you are suggesting changing the reference to a different primary source after a long discussion about DUE/UNDUE that you said resolved something for you (???) Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will clear this up with Neil, but I don't get what this has to do with the discussion. Again, check with my proposal. We're here to discuss SCF and Guardian being used as a source (not DW anymore). So what makes you think the SCF or the Guardian is unreliable? The SCF is a reputable outlet and the Guardian source, though opinion, is good enough if we can attribute it. You wanted multiple sources so I'm give you them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am trusting will not (re}add the material unless there's consensus. --Neil N  talk to me 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, usually there is a self-revert but I have removed the edit in this case per the outcome of this discussion and Etienne's agreement. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * However, NeilN said that he'd advised to leave the content alone. Why are you removing it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you said it's practically resolved - as a condition for having your editing restriction lifted - so I didn't assume you were lying. You need to gain consensus for inclusion, until then, my understanding is that you have agreed to stop trying to edit war it into the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I have added the full DW interview as an external link. I think this is a permissible use of external links because of the inherent improbability of being able to excerpt quotes from an interview without WP:OR - so it adds something that can not easily be included in the main article text. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Boğaziçi university students
The students Erdogan was talking about were detained for assaulting another group of students during the commemoration of Turkish soldiers killed in the operation, not for "conducting an anti-war protest". Iyi muhabbet (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

please provide info on humanitarian aid after the capture of city center.
what amount of aid, if any, has been provided to locals after the the defeat of Pyd/PKK alleged terrorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.53.53 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced template - War Crimes
This section has numerous issues. It cites primary sources without any secondary sources (HRW). This section and the article seem to have placed tremendous weight on SOHR - I have counted at least three places where SOHR is Wikilinked, and numerous opinion quotes from the founder. I think it is ok to have a few facts sourced to SOHR as long as they are reported by secondary sources, but it is different to include pure opinion quotes that don't add anything but a quotation of one person's opinion. There are also some citations to Pro-PKK publications. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And what's wrong with SOHR again? And I only see one "pro-PKK" news outlet being used and it's being used by citation (i.e. According to the pro-PKK Firat News Agency...) for an official statement. Nothing wrong about that. We use official statements all the time even though we generally don't consider those sources reliable. The same goes for Anadolu Agency and even the TSK (which is also used in that section). Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that an "official statement" of a FTO should be given the same weight as an official statement of a recognized nation's military? Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's important to consider the official response from any such organization that's being accussed of something like that, whether it be an organization, military institution, political institution, and etc. should not matter to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Statements by FTO's are not given equal weight in reliable sources. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And how'd you reach that conclusion and why does that matter? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed the pro-PKK source - it is not even disputed that this is not a reliable source, there must be some standards for what is added to this article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You need consensus to remove it. Plus, TSK is also not a reliable source. As is Anadolu Agency, but they're still used for official stats and statements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway I am really trying to help you Etienne. These article is not in good shape—I don't only edit, I also read Wikipedia. But if you aren't willing to follow the policies it's very disrespectful. The policy is WP:ONUS - it's not hard to follow these policies and it produces a better product if we do it. I am not taking the time to do discuss this with you because I like to waste time - I think we all have to follow the policies out of respect for one another, not that a special set of rules applies to one person and their opinion is special or something - I hope that makes sense. Please consider making an effort to be more collaborative. Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)