At least one of us has to follow [[WP:BRD]] if anything's going to get done, and I feel like if I don't take it to talk, nobody will, so I'm making it into a thread myself. <span style="background-color:#0072de;font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<span style="color: white;"> Vanilla </span>]]</span><span style="background-color:#743ba3;font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<span style="color: white;"> Wizard </span>]]</span> [[Special:Contributions/Vanilla Wizard|💙]]</span> 07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
At least one of us has to follow [[WP:BRD]] if anything's going to get done, and I feel like if I don't take it to talk, nobody will, so I'm making it into a thread myself. <span style="background-color:#0072de;font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<span style="color: white;"> Vanilla </span>]]</span><span style="background-color:#743ba3;font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<span style="color: white;"> Wizard </span>]]</span> [[Special:Contributions/Vanilla Wizard|💙]]</span> 07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:Ok let me start by saying I was not aware that there was a 1RR on this article, I don't think I've broken it but if I have I won't from now on. And the reason I changed this statement is because it is extremely ambiguous. What does that sentence even mean? Seems like a POV attack placed right on to the lede. I first removed it fully, someone re added it, than I moved it to background section and added more details, someone fully reverted me once again. Now I've added more detail to it in the lede to fix the ambiguity and I hope no one fully reverts me once again and compromises. [[User:A4516416|A4516416]] ([[User talk:A4516416|talk]]) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
A news item involving 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 October 2019.
Wikipedia
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
I suggest reaching a consensus on the name of the article at the start of the operation, so that we do not have to move it over and over again. In line with the previous Turkish military operations in Syria (Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch), i propose the following name for this article: Operation Peace Spring. Turkish president Erdogan used this exact name when launching the operation this afternoon. [1]I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki NPOV actual goes against using one sides operational name over another. A more neutral name would not refer to the operational name.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree "Operation Peace Spring" is the operation name as defined by one of the belligerent sides, and as such, I do not consider it a neutral name. I'm sure that the SDF will have their own operation name soon, and I strongly doubt it would match the Turkish side's name. As for the other operations, I actually believe they should be subjected to the same treatment. I do not know why, but Turkish military operations seem to be named by their Turkish-defined names, which is in contrast to most established customs, even within the Syrian Civil War niche. For example, the Syrian Government's recent offensive in Idlib was dubbed by a neutral name - namely Northwestern Syria offensive (April-August 2019) and not by the name given to it by the Syrian Government - "Operation Dawn of Idlib", a stark contrast to operations begun by the Turkish government. Using the operation's name as defined by only one side could constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Instead, I'd suggest we refer to it as "Turkish military operation in Northern Syria" and create a redirect pointing there from "Operation Peace Spring", so any reader that is searching for the article using the Turkish-defined name could still easily find it. I consider that to be an equitable compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the more I think about it the more offensive it becomes to me to adopt the propagandistic title of a warring faction for this attack. I have moved it to a wordy but neutral title. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Operation Peace Spring, as it is a Turkish military operation codenamed that. The codenames are what we have the other 2 Turkish military operations in Syria under, and it is concise. It should also be protected from moving, regardless of what the name is. -Thespündragon01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current title (2019 Rojava offensive) is the worst possible option here because of its ambiguity. Since it doesn't mention that Turkey is doing the offensive-ing, it implies that it's Rojava, as the only named party, which is attacking. I don't have much of an opinion on using the operation name, though I find Goodposts' argument reasonable, but either way we're going to need at least one more rename. ansh.66601:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer something along the lines of "2019 Turkish offensive in Rojava" - I don't like "2019 Rojava offensive" because it almost makes it sound as if Rojava is the belligerent on the offensive, which isn't accurate. I know we've used the Turkish operation names before on other articles, but in all honesty I really don't think it should be that way. I completely share the concern of Drmies here. Titles like Operation Peace Spring and Operation Olive Branch are simply Orwellian. I'd support any title that indicates that it's a Turkish military operation, as others have suggested, but using Turkey's names which are intended to make their offensive invasion sound like a peacekeeping mission is obviously neither neutral nor accurate. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest name change to 2019 Turkish invasion of Northern Syria. Rojava is the name of the Kurdish region of Syria but it is not really encompassing of the many Arab regions of Northern Syria which are being invaded. Manbij may also be invaded and this Arab-majority town is outside the Rojava region of Syria. In addition, many Arabs and other non-Kurds are part of the SDF so I think a title like Northern Syria is far better suited. As for using the term 'invasion', this is nothing else but an invasion by definition. Whether you believe this invasion is justified (according to Turkish narrative) or whether you beleive it is clear Turkish agression is your opinion. But the word invasion needs to stand in place of military 'offensive', which makes this Turkish aggression sound innocent and like this any other battle of the Syrian civil war (on Wikipedia). In reality, the Syrian regime has condemned the Turkish invasion as a clear violation of the territory of Syria, and the SDF have done likewise. So the Turks are unwanted and Damascus has also condemned the Turkish operation as an 'invasion'. I agree with User:Vanilla Wizard in that the Turkish names for their various invasion operations are misleading.
No serious news outlet uses the word "rojava", outside PYD/YPG/PKK sources. If you are not going by the official name, then I would suggest something like "Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria" or something along that line. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's my preference too, "2019 Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria". Says simply: when, who, what, where; in the most recognizable terms possible. Normally I'd advise waiting for sources but in this case I doubt they'll standardize on a single name. ansh.66605:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Rojava before discussing whether or not to use the name "Rojava." We've crossed that bridge through lengthy discussion before and it would be a mistake to re-cross it on every Rojava-related article. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reviewing the talk page at Talk:Rojava, I just realized that this user (Amr ibn Kulthoum) actually participated in the discussion there, and they suggested that the page "[[Rojava]]" should be renamed to "[[Kurdish occupied areas in northeastern Syria]]", comparing it to ISIL. I sincerely apologize if this comes off as an NPA violation, but their prior comments on this subject are problematic. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a change of name to Turkish Invasion of Northern Eastern Syria as Rojava refers only the Kurdish sections of Syria and the fighting is happening on a much larger front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if any text made that clear--more importantly, if any French reaction addressed that. BTW lots of countries have troops in the region; it's not equally important for all those countries. We shouldn't put any Kurdish response on a par with that of Belgium or Finland or whatever. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too many countries, was too quick to judge without reading to content at the revert there, there are too many unnecessary countries not involved. A4516416 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only America, France, Denmark (medical) and the UK have troops in Northeastern Syria. This article mentions French and British troops and the scenario of an American withdrawal[2] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that adding reactions from world and regional powers, as well as neighbouring countries, should also be included. Any country with "boots on the ground" should definitely also be included, regardless of how small the contingent actually is. International organizations, such as the Arab League and UN should also be included in the reactions tab. What should be excluded, however, are generic political statements that don't really address the situation. My 2 cents. Goodposts (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources primarily refer to the present assault as a TSK offensive, whereas reliable souces primarily refer to the first stage of the Iraq War as an invasion. -Thespündragon02:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which symbol should be used to represent Rojava?
I noticed that it got changed from the adopted seal to a de-facto flag which shows the seal on a white background; I personally think that if we're going to use a de-facto flag, it's best to use the most common one (the yellow-red-green tricolour version). I'll boldly add this change myself, but I expect that not everyone will agree with me, so I'll start this talk section before making the change to avoid any edit warring & to can follow the WP:BRD process. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The flag used to represent the entity(flag with seal) should be used, not the flag used to represent the political alliance governing it(tricolor). It is valid to use the TEV-DEM flag to represent the Administration(DFNS->NES) in infoboxes on events prior to late 2018, as the Administration had no official symbols. While the flag itself is not strictly official, it is used in official settings to represent the administration, and uses the Administration's official emblem. The flag of TEV-DEM is only ever used to represent TEV-DEM. -Thespündragon01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After finding this graphic (that you created), I understand what you're saying now. If the TEV-DEM flag is used at all, it would make more sense to have it next to the YPG flag. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that the best place to put the yellow-red-green flag is alongside the flags of the military wings (the YPG and YPJ). Hopefully this change wasn't inaccurate. Vanilla Wizard 💙04:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vatan Partisi itself does not claim to be leftist. It claims to be Kemalist, the ideology of M. Kemal Ataturk. They are also not a part of Socialist International. Could someone please remove the leftist? It is also okay to remove Vatan Partisi comment altogether, as their latest election result is 0.23%. They are not representing any group in Turkish politics. 131.111.5.154 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Redundant - The move discussion is still ongoing and a consensus will be reached. While it is normally standard to keep the pre-discussion name until a new consensus is reached, the page was moved by an administrator because they believed that the original name was an offensive violation of the policy on neutrality. Users are evidently split on what the name should be, so you're welcomed to join the discussion above. Vanilla Wizard 💙06:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
why are we re-proposing titles in a second discussion less than 12 hours after starting the previous discussion? the nom requested a procedural speedy move, but turning this into a multi-threaded discussion when we were already engaged in one seems like a preventable headache Vanilla Wizard 💙06:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The deletion of this. Apparently an Admin has moved it to his current state. Does the admin have more consensus rights over regular users? It was in its previous name with the consensus of three users, it still has consensus by 5 users now (increased). But apparently an admin has seen the current name more fit? Even though more users disagreed with him. And now we have to stick with this name because an admin feels so? I still insist of speedy move until the discussion above is finished. A4516416 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence in lede being reverted
I'm noticing that @A4516416: has been repeatedly removing, moving, and rewriting this particular sentence:
Ok let me start by saying I was not aware that there was a 1RR on this article, I don't think I've broken it but if I have I won't from now on. And the reason I changed this statement is because it is extremely ambiguous. What does that sentence even mean? Seems like a POV attack placed right on to the lede. I first removed it fully, someone re added it, than I moved it to background section and added more details, someone fully reverted me once again. Now I've added more detail to it in the lede to fix the ambiguity and I hope no one fully reverts me once again and compromises. A4516416 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree "Operation Peace Spring" is the operation name as defined by one of the belligerent sides, and as such, I do not consider it a neutral name. I'm sure that the SDF will have their own operation name soon, and I strongly doubt it would match the Turkish side's name. As for the other operations, I actually believe they should be subjected to the same treatment. I do not know why, but Turkish military operations seem to be named by their Turkish-defined names, which is in contrast to most established customs, even within the Syrian Civil War niche. For example, the Syrian Government's recent offensive in Idlib was dubbed by a neutral name - namely Northwestern Syria offensive (April-August 2019) and not by the name given to it by the Syrian Government - "Operation Dawn of Idlib", a stark contrast to operations begun by the Turkish government. Using the operation's name as defined by only one side could constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Instead, I'd suggest we refer to it as "Turkish military operation in Northern Syria" and create a redirect pointing there from "Operation Peace Spring", so any reader that is searching for the article using the Turkish-defined name could still easily find it. I consider that to be an equitable compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
