Talk:Northern Syria Buffer Zone

First patrol and ongoing disagreement

First patrol and ongoing disagreement

On 8 September 2019, hours after Turkish Armed Forces and United States Armed Forces conducted a first joint patrol near the Syrian town of Tell Abyad, President Erdogan cited "continuous disagreements" with the U.S. over the deal. He said the U.S. seems to be "looking for a safe zone for the terrorist organization," not for Turkey.

This info, worded in an WP:NPOV way with the literal citations of Erdoğan and making it clear that the "deal" is not "done" and YPG is a redactional interpretation of Erdoğan's words.

@Wakari07: You don't get it. Go to "implementation timeline". That's already there. The patrol, Erdogan's statement, everything. What you want to add to the article is already IN the article. Goodposts (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@Goodposts: Thank you for talking. Let's try to get it together then. The points I'd want to keep included are:

• The place in the article – as I see the article structure, the political context belongs in the negotiations section and hard facts on the ground belong in the implementation timeline. One will inevitably reference the other, I don't see this as a problem.
• There is no deal published that I know of, except by the SDF. And whatever was supposedly agreed by whatever parties, Erdoğan did not "express dissatisfaction with the buffer zone" but he literally mentioned "continuous disagreements with the U.S. concerning the buffer zone". So it's clear the deal is not done, at least not in Erdoğan's view.
• Erdoğan describes the party over the border as "the terrorist organization". He implied whatever org you may think, but that's in his mind, not in this encyclopedia.
• A new point: Reuters and ABC News are more solid sources than Ahval and a private Twitter account translating/interpreting T24. Wakari07 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wakari07:

• Repeating content just makes the article unnecessarily long, without really adding value to it. If you'd like to mention that Turkey is still trying to negotiate or alter the deal, you're free to do so and I have no issue with that, but simply copying the same text twice is pointless.
• The deal published by the SDF has been spot-on so far. Pretty much every single thing that happened within the buffer zone so far falls completely within what the SDF leaders described was agreed on in the deal. Stating that Erdogan has expressed dissatisfaction with the buffer zone is a fair statement, considering that he has threatened to invade the region multiple times, if X or Y doesn't happen/doesn't happen in a timeframe that he finds reasonable. You could, if you want to, state he he has expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation or execution of the buffer zone, if you really wish to be that technical.
• In the "Background" section, we've already mentioned that Erdogan and the Turkish state in general consider the YPG to be an off-shoot of the PKK, which is considered a terrorist group by Turkey. We've also transcluded both the YPG and PKK articles, both of which also mention the same thing. Again, no need to repeat information.
• They may well be, but they don't publish articles on everything that happens in the zone. Sometimes we have to use other sources. Furthermore, having an abudance of differing sources increases the quality of the citations, rather than just using the same two sources again and again. I try to use the highest quality and least biased sources whenever possible.

So, in general - I don't have a problem with what you're trying to do. I just don't see the copy-and-paste approach as the best way to do it.

Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Having faithful citations is better than only having an editorialized interpretation of what was really said. I insist on WP:Verifyability, WP:Sources and WP:NPOV. Also WP:No original research. Erdoğan said what he said, not what we would like to believe he said. Wakari07 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wakari07: None of those standards are broken in this case. It is impossible to include a full citation of every speech for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Instead, speeaches are summarized and cited, which allows the reader to view the source material for his/herself, if he/she decides to do so. Our job is to convey the meaning behind statements in a way that is faithful to both the original statement and the stated source. Hence, a wikipedia entry along the lines of "Erdogan accused the U.S. of supporting the YPG" is fully acceptible, as we have already made clear that one, the YPG is the group that Erdogan is referring to and two, that the YPG is considered a terrorist group by the Turkish President. However, it is not up to wikipedia to define which groups are "terrorist" and which are not. If it is so necessary to remind the reader of the Turkish President's views on the YPG, it is enough only to add "which Turkey considers a terrorist group" to the sentence. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts: If you insist on deleting my addition —I made my point abundantly, as you made yours— maybe we can get a third opinion or open up the discussion, and find a middle ground somewhere? For now, nobody else disagrees with how things are presented now. Wakari07 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wakari07: I don't insist on deleting it - I just simply think that it shouldn't be repeated twice without a good reason. Nobody objected to the way it was before, too. What are you fundamentally trying to add to the article by repeating it? If it's simply to make clear that negotiations are still ongoing, that could definitely be done. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to have an accurate description of what was really said on September 8, not an editorialized interpretation of what we (you) think may have been said based on earlier conclusions. Erdogan doesn't mention the YPG, but "the terrorist organization". This is Reuters' editorial addition: "The safe zone region is mostly controlled by Kurdish YPG forces, U.S. allies that Ankara has labeled terrorists." Erdogan did not express "dissatisfaction with the buffer zone..." but disagreement with the U.S.: "We are negotiating with the U.S. for the safe zone, but we see at every step that what we want and what they have in mind is not the same thing." He further says: "It seems that our ally is looking for a safe zone for the terrorist organization, not for us. We reject such understanding." What Erdogan literally says is more relevant than how a journalist frames it, at least I think Wikipedia readers are not looking for news agency opinions but for hard facts (also precise wordings and eventually citations). I also suggest to have the "political talks" in the upper section and the "boots on the ground" in the timeline. So I would be glad to move the political comments from the timeline and put them above. Your additions for September 10 and 12 would also rather fit in the "talks" (above) than in the "outcome" (below) section. ? Wakari07 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wakari07: Erdogan is directly referring to the YPG in that statement. Furthermore, his statement is essentially the textbook definition of being "dissatisfied". Changing a verb to a synonym doesn't make the statement factually incorrect. In fact, we are obligated to reword sources, so that there are no copyright issues on wikipedia. Moving the text would disrupt the timeline, so how about instead we add a sentence or two that explains that talks are still being held? Goodposts (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there's some US-sourced talk by the US-led coalition claiming the existence of talks between the US-led coalition and Turkey [1]. But even in that source, Cavusoglu dismissed the efforts as broadly 'cosmetic'. Dissatisfaction and disagreement are not at all synonyms. Wakari07 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that, if Turkey disagrees with this part of the deal, that it is henceforth dissatisfied with it? Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems both are true. Today, Cavusoglu expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the talks and with the "current state of efforts," again threatening to act unilaterally [2]. Erdoğan earlier expressed disagreement on the way forward. The deal is clearly not in final status. Wakari07 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on that! Goodposts (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your tireless edits on this article. Wakari07 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

can this article be included in the syrian civil war information box

can this article be included in the syrian civil war information box.Alhanuty (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's under the link "2019 Northern Syria demilitarization" in the 2019 timeline. You may want to discuss proposed changes at the Template talk:Syrian Civil War template talk page. Wakari07 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

map

Surely that map is of the current situation, and not that of December 2018?Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Its now been changed, please take more care.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)