Talk:Operation Euphrates Shield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death of Abdulsettar Al-Cadiri (Jarabulus Military Council)

I think it may be relevant to include information about the death of Abdulsettar Al-Cadiri, commander of the newly established Jarabulus military council, because "the Kurds" have accused Turkey of assassinating him. It seems very relevant. Here is a source with more info: http://aranews.net/2016/08/kurds-accuse-turkish-intelligence-assassinating-military-leader-syrias-jarabulus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FugeeCamp (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

With regards from Whiterun Tavern -Spess

Orphaned references in Battle of Jarabulus (2016)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Jarabulus (2016)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bastion":

• From Northwestern Syria offensive (April–June 2015): Times of Oman. "Times of Oman - News :: Al Qaeda, allies advance on regime bastion Idlib as UN aid chief urges sanctions and Angelina Jolie pleads for help to refugees". Retrieved 26 July 2016.
• From Battle of al-Qusayr (2013): "Syrian forces storm rebel bastion of Qusayr". Rappler. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
• From Battle of Qalamoun (2013): "Air strikes near Syria rebel bastion Yabrud". GlobalPost. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
• From Manbij offensive: "US-backed fighters close in on IS Syria bastion". Retrieved 6 June 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

asddasasd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmatthew (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This request is likely a vandalism attempt. I can't understand what He just said. Newsboy39 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Shall we indicate equipment (like tanks or howitzers) in the strength part of infobox. I just checked several examples and only troops was mentioned there. Any ideas?

Mingus79 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Number of equipments used by an armed force isn't available in every battle. It can be the examples you saw were the ones in which the equipment used by an armed force was not known. I do think I sometime ago read World War II articles containing strength/number of equipment being used by an armed force during a battle. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced information

Please be kind to provide references for the "units involved" box for Syrian side. Most of the units indicated there (other then Sham and Murad) are not mentioned in any reliable sources. (none that i can find) Otherwise i think this information must be removed.

Mingus79 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

- Some have referenced for casualties to anfeng (very unreliable) which is the propaganda outlet of the terror group PKK Bradley258 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also some of the references given does not contain the indicated information. Maybe we should clean them as (citation needed) Mingus79 (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Either there should be some 3rd party sources and Turkish sources added to it or it should be removed because it gives a biased view which against the neutrality principles of wikipedia. Bradley258 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What? Sultan Murad Division is the major group in the offensive. You can recognize them with red flag and Shahada. You're saying "(other then Sham and Murad) are not mentioned in any reliable sources. (none that i can find) Otherwise i think this information must be removed."

Open your eyes please! Check the sources. Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The game-changing Jarablus operation

Here is a link to an excellent article on the recent situation in Jarablus and the accompanying operation: http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/duran-burhanettin/2016/08/27/the-game-changing-jarablus-operation -78.171.140.252 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Map incorrect

The gains of FSA around Jarabulus are too large. Even Yeni Safak, a pro-Turkish source does not show them as large. See map in source. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check the template! And follow some news about liberated villages. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Beshogur Are you saying the sources are incorrect? The source I mentioned here is just 2 hours old and FSA seem to be mostly engaged with SDF for now. The FSA gains are clearly too large in this map. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is not incorrect, but the map is. Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And how is it you claim that the map is incorrect? Newsboy39 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beshogur, calling villages taken by Turkey-backed jihadi rebels from the Syrian Democratic Forces as "liberated" might suggest a bias in your approach to the article, you might wish to avoid that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The biased labeling of the map is not acceptable

The labeling in this map is grossly biased. While calling the green forces "Free Syrian army" is somewhat misleading (see section above), the labeling of the yellow forces other than correct "SDF", namely additional as "YPG" (one faction of the SDF) and "PYD" (a political party, not an armed fighting force) demonstrates a bias that is not tolerable here in my opinion. Either the labeling is corrected in an unbiased manner or this map must be removed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Even ISIS is called "DAESH" in map. I wonder what's the reason behind it. They are never called as DAESH on Wiki. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The labeling on this map follows discernable narrative patterns. Calling ISIL "Daesh" is common among those Islamists who are opposed to ISIL, because it avoids using the term "Islamic" as part of the name that ISIL itself uses. Using "PYD" instead of or in addition to "SDF" is common among Turkish ultra-nationalists. Combining both mentioned ideologies is the governing AKP party in Turkey, as well as Turkey president Recep Tayyip Erdogan from their ranks. The labeling of this map perfectly reflects the POV Turkey government narrative on the topic. Even the excessive promotional labeling of the jihadi rebels under the meaningless term "Free Syrian Army" fits that POV perfectly. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

PYD especially has nothing to do in the map. It is one of the political parties in Rojava. YPG is the armed service of whole Rojava not PYD, though it owes allegiance to it. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is as unusual and obviously malicious as it were to put "AKP" behind "Turkey" on a map. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me help you with your psycho-analysis targetting me. I created the map. I'm neither a political islamist nor an ultra-nationalist. If you'd like to know, I have never voted for AKP as well. State your opinions about factual accuracy, not my personality, cause it's wrong both as a behavior and as a possibility. You can also follow the territorial changes on Live UA

Furthermore, you should also avoid using "Rojava" term on your posts if you are this concerned about bias since Rojava term has no official status under any official circumstance. Berkaysnklf (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not say anything (and absolutely do not care) about your personality, my comment is about deficiencies on this map. And my reasoned opinion is that either are factions denoted by their names, i.e. "ISIL" and "SDF", or this map must be removed as POV. As to your not relevant remark concerning Rojava, it has an own article here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Berkaysnklf Nobody called you biased or pro-Turkish or pro-Islamist. The problem is usage of improper terms as well as the incorrectness in the map which shows a much larger area under FSA controk than even the pro-Turkish sources. Your map says "YPG" which claims it has withdrawn, even the USA says it has mostly. Only Turkey claims it is actively fighting against Syrian opposition. Also PYD is a political party. In addition, DAESH is mostly used as a derogatory term, so it can't be used here. Last of all I can't understand how you claim "Rojava" is bias. The term is simply used to refer to the region under SDF control, regardless of whether it's recognised officially or not. It is not in any way similar to the terms used in your map, which are either negative or simply based on one-sided reports. Please remove the terms PYD and YPG and replace DAESH with ISIS. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Map

What is the source for this map? I have not seen any reports indicating that the Turkish-backed rebels have gained that much territory. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This article says they have advanced 10 km (6 miles) south of Jarablus. That is less than half the distance between Jarablus and the Sajur River. Pinging Editor abcdef, the map maker. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The map doesn't seem to be correct. For example I saw a source that showed FSA controls 1-2 villages somewhat farther to the west connected by a very small strip. I saw the source some time ago and don't remember its name but I'll try to find it again. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor abcdef, Erlbaeko I've found a source containing a map for the offensive, the map is actually from Liveuamap: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-war-news-latest-islamic-state-turkish-tanks-cross-border-as-jarablus-offensive-against-isis-a7208601.html. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the map in the Independent article is correct for the situation early on 25 August, and that is a reliable, published source. Editor abcdef, can you fix it? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've updated the map based on the Live UA Map. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure Editor abcdef? The Liveua map has a territory controlled by FSA in the west connected by a small strip along the border to the territory in the east around Jarabulus. Your map doesn't. Newsboy39 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor abcdef changed from this to this. I changed to this. I am sure it's better, but it is not perfect. It's based on the Live UA Map per 26/08/2016 (use the Time function to see history). Erlbaeko (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Applodion. I noted that you said here that you were "restoring sourced version". What is the source for that? Have the Turkish-backed rebels crossed the Sajur Lake 30 km southwest for Jarablus as that map indicate? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ups, sry, I wanted to restore your version, based on al-Masdar. ^^ My fault. Applodion (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That is based on an updated version of the map published in the Independent article above, but thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor abcdef What is the source for the "Small strip of land to the west" you added to the map? Ref. diff Erlbaeko (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The battle map of Jarabulus as of 25 August from Newsmap.pl. But the Live UA Map as of today depicts it as a solid, continuous stretch of territory so should I make it the latter? Editor abcdef (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that arrow in the left column just a description of the symbols used at that map? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor abcdef I see you have changed the map again, ref. diff. Do you have a source that says the Turkish-backed rebels have captured anything west for Turaykham? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Wikimapia link says that the rebels captured the village yesterday. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That village was captured 16:30 EEST on 24 August according to the battle map of Jarabulus you posted above. My question is if they have captured anything further west or southwest? Note that Turaykham is located 16 km southwest of Jarablus and 12 km northeast of the The Sjaur Lake. It was changed from IS to opposition on the module page for the Syrian Civil War map by Beshogur on 25 August 2016 based on this and this article, ref diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

New map called Turkish-led offensive in Northern Syria

Beshogur and Berkaysnklf Re [1] Why don't you try to achieve consensus through discussion when the bold changes is reverted? I believe the new map is quite good, but this article is about the Jarabulus offensive, not Turkeys involvment in the Syrian Civil War. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't like this map, looks too amateur. Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your personal taste is not an argument based in policy, sources, or common sense. This article is about the Jarabulus offensive. I believe the map we had shows that offensive better. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

Erlbaeko Editor abcdef ISIL has recaptured Al-Rai: [2] [3]. You should update the map. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And the FSA just took it back. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There was never an offensive which was limited to Jarabulus, honestly; I couldn't understand why you have called it just Jarabulus offensive. I think, the better action is to name the article Operation Euphrates Shield which aims to cleanse Euphrates area from IS and YPG. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The biased labeling of the map is not acceptable

The labeling in this map is grossly biased. While calling the green forces "Free Syrian army" is somewhat misleading (see section below), the labeling of the yellow forces other than correct "SDF", namely additional as "YPG" (one faction of the SDF) and "PYD" (a political party, not an armed fighting force) demonstrates a bias that is not tolerable here in my opinion. Either the labeling is corrected in an unbiased manner or this map must be removed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The territory belongs to the FSA, most of the troop are FSA allied groups, the Turks only have supportive role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley258 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I protest 2A1ZA'a neutrality on this topic

Dear 2A1ZA, your detailed description of your personal opinions on a sensitive topic labeled "Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labelling" reflects your biases and impartial views on the subject matter. I protest you and ask that other neutral administrators warn you about your neutrality and they edit the article instead. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of blaming others for bias to raise doubts about them, I suggest you just focus on discussion of the content. It's not going to do anyone good with personal accusations. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "The spokesman for Pentagon called for YPG to pull back to east of the river which he stated had largely occured." to "The spokesman for Pentagon called for YPG to pull back to east of the river which he stated had largely occurred". (this is a minor spelling change, occurred is spelled with two rs) —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add this paragraph with new information in the section "International reactions", "From states", alphabetically between "Bulgaria" and "Germany":

• France: The president of France, Francois Hollande, has criticized Turkey's "contradictory" military operation in Syria, saying he could understand Turkey's concern about protecting its borders and fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group, but criticized Ankara's actions against the YPG militia allied with the U.S.-led coalition who are fighting ISIL.

Signature for that request: -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Islamic State fighters swapping their uniforms

Most of you may already have heard about the allegiations that Islamic State fighters have been swapping their uniforms and are now fighting for the Turkish-led offensive. (http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/30/anti-isis-fighters-syria-tortured-turkish-led-invasion-forces-video/)

I can very well imagine that this is true since Turkey's already known for letting IS supply over its borders and for actively supporting al-Qaeda. But I'm not here to speculate about anything and that's also not what Wikipedia is thought for.

My point is, that we should at least mention that there were allegiations.

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ermanarich It is just a report and the source of this report on the website is from a pro-Kurdish source. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. This is the reason why I called it allegiations.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an edit, "International reactions", "From states", New: "France"

I seek consensus for adding this paragraph with new information in the section "International reactions", "From states", alphabetically between "Bulgaria" and "Germany":

• France: The president of France, Francois Hollande, has criticized Turkey's "contradictory" military operation in Syria, saying he could understand Turkey's concern about protecting its borders and fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group, but criticized Ankara's actions against the YPG militia allied with the U.S.-led coalition who are fighting ISIL.

Please speak if you disagree. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Same here.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Applodion (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There appear to be no objections against this edit. Please add this paragraph with new information in the section "International reactions", "From states", alphabetically between "Bulgaria" and "Germany":

• France: The president of France, Francois Hollande, has criticized Turkey's "contradictory" military operation in Syria, saying he could understand Turkey's concern about protecting its borders and fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group, but criticized Ankara's actions against the YPG militia allied with the U.S.-led coalition who are fighting ISIL.

Signed: -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

FSA/Turkish-SDF ceasefire

I think these new developments should be added. There have been several reports of Turkish/FSA-SDF ceasefire along with reports of fighting and a US general saying Kurds have went to east of Euphrates:

On August 30, John Thomas, a spokesman for the US Central Command stated that Turkey and SDF had agreed to stop fighting each other and had opened communications woth United States as well as with each other. Jarabulus Military Council on August 30 claimed that it had reached a temporary ceasefire agreement with Turkey after mediation by the US-led anti-ISIL coalition. It also claimed that the ceasefire had started around midnight of 29-30 July. Meanwhile, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs termed the United States' comments deeking a de-escalation were "unacceptable" while asserting that the country will continue the military operations till terrorist threats in the region were removed. It also demanded assurance that YPG will withdraw to east of Euphrates. Turkish military sources and commander of a Syrian opposition group denied a ceasefire had taken effect. The commander stated however while there was a pause in the operation, it will resume shortly. The United States welcomed the apparent pause in fighting. Later in the day, Turkish Armed Forces stated that a Turkish tank near Sajur river was hit by a rocket. However, it was not clear who carried out the attack. The Turkish military carried out a strike 45 minutes after the tank was hit and claimed it had destroyed a group of "terrorists" west of Jarablus. It also claimed thay it carried out airstrikes against ISIL targets in Kulliyah in northern Syria. The Turkish government however didn't confirm or deny the ceasefire while SOHR confirmed that there was a pause in fighting between the two groups around Jarablus and Sajor river. General Joseph Votel meanwhile stated that Kurdish fighters had moved to east of Euphrates as per their commitment.

I hope it seems ok to you all. Newsboy39 (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Full support to include it.Applodion (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an edit, "International reactions", "From states", New: "Iran"

I seek consensus for adding this paragraph with new information in the section "International reactions", "From states", alphabetically between "Germany" and "Netherlands":

• Iran: Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi on 31 August urged Ankara to quickly wrap up its military intervention in Syria, saying it was an "unacceptable" violation of Syrian sovereignty.

Please speak if you disagree. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have another source than the Daily mail? That media channel is considered untrustworthy.Bradley258 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

They are quoting Agence France-Presse. Same agency report is Here on France24 for example. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Please change "Some of the Syrian refugees, mainly Syrian Turkmen and Arabs who were living in the area which Turkish-led forces liberated" to "Some of the Syrian refugees, mainly Syrian Turkmen and Arabs who were living in the area which Turkish-led forces captured". Regardless of any factions, "liberated" is not a neutral term and shouldn't be used except in quotes. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, liberated is never used in Wikipedia conflict articles. Newsboy39 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. The language of the article must be neutral towards warring parties, not endorse one over others. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we please add at status: "ISIL rule ended in Jarablus" Its one of the consequences of the offensive and Jarablus is one of Aleppos largest cities.Bradley258 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an edit, "International reactions",

Former U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 2008 to 2010 James Jeffrey said that the U.S. failed to keep its promise to Turkey on the retreat of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) to the east of the Euphrates. Furthermore, he said that the PYD's aims go beyond fighting ISIL, claiming the organization has also long been trying to a establish a "Kurdish corridor" through to the Mediterranean Sea. Bradley258 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Negatory. I've seen far too many reactions sections (or articles) explode by including every man and their dog, so I take a hard line. If the politician is not a spokesperson for the government then I don't support their inclusion. Hollth (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Against. A "former ambassador" speaking in private capacity does not represent the United States. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be included. He is still a US official, just a former ambassador and it is really a noteworthy claim. Berkaysnklf (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A "former ambassador" is a "former official", not an "official". And that guy is obviously not speaking on behalf of the U.S. government but in private capacity. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He was also United States Ambassador to Iraq from August 2010 to June 2012, US Deputy National Security Adviser from 2007–2008, United States Ambassador to Albania from October 3, 2002 to May 2, 2004, and he is a fellow at several institutes and councils for strategy and diplomacy, therefore he has an extensive knowledge of the region and matters of geopolitical scenery. His statement would give the reader another point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley258 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He does at this point of time not represent the U.S. and his opinion cannot be presented as the opinion of the United States of America. No way. What one might consider is another section for freelance opinions on the subject, but if you open that, be aware that there will also be freelance opinions which you will not like. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an edit, "International reactions", "From states", "United States": claim that Turkish actions after taking Jarabulus were unacceptable and that the U.S. would continue to back the YPG

I seek consensus for adding this sentence with new information in the section "International reactions", "From states", "United States", at the end of that paragraph:

On 31 August, the U.S. said Turkey's actions after taking Jarablus were "unacceptable" and CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel said that the U.S. will continue to support the YPG.

Please speak if you disagree. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree conflicting messages are coming from the US about supporting YPG if they do no retreat. See Bidens remarks or the statements coming from the WH. Bradley258 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the U.S. communication on the issue has been suboptimal in terms of clarity, but that cannot mean to cherry-pick only earlier statements that you like and ignore later statements you do not like. All of them must be in the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 2A1ZA that this should be included. Applodion (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Include SDF advances against ISIL?

Shouldn't SDF advances against ISIL in the theater be included in the article?

Besides the earlier SDF advanves north of the Sejour river that were reversed by non-ISIL jihadi rebels, there were advanves reported both to the South of Manbij and in yesterday to the Southeast of Tel Rifaat. Both the text of the article and the map could (in my opinion: should) include that, as it happens in the same theater at the same time. Actually the map even appears to reflect the new frontline both south of Manbij and southeast of Tel Rifaat, but does not include an arrow to indicate advance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Berkaysnklf, as you apparently update the frontlines in the map with respect to SDF advances against ISIL as well, would you include arrows to indicate advances in the next map update as well? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

SDF gained two villages with US help east of Tel Rifat yesterday, however controlled them for just few hours, and currently there seems no movement by SDF in Manbij, in contrary, ISIL pushed northwards toward Manbij, SDF just re-captured those villages. Thus, currently no "offensive" to show with arrows on the map. Berkaysnklf (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that at least three villages Southeast of Tel Rifaat previously held by ISIL have been captured by the SDF since yesterday, namely Harbul, Maarat Umm Hawsh and Tal Qarah, confirmed that they hold them now, and they are pushing further into the Shahba Reservoir area further east (which is the historic stronghold of one of SDF's component groups, the Army of Revolutionaries). Your own latest map shows the area of those three recently SDF-captured villages as SDF-held. And if you have serious information about ISIL offensives in the area, as you claim, they should be on the map as well. An unbiased, NPOV map should not show offensives of one faction only. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 2A1ZA, map should be adjusted accordingly.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Berkaysnklf, dear Gerry1214, to further discussion, here is a pro-ISIL-sourced map on what is happening today. The offensives it notes is SDF against ISIL south of Mare and ISIL itself making gains against Turkey-backed forces west of Jarabulus. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The advances south of Mare' is a completely different and separate offensive, so a new article should be made for it. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While an additional own article on that topic might or might not make sense, the facts should definitely be included in this article as well, as all parties to the Jarabbulus offensive warring see these developments strongly and immediately related. And concerning the map used here, that area concerned is on the map, which (in my opinion correctly) also depicts the related Turkish army bombardment of Afrin even further to the west. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not start the POV narrative edit-war again

I am fully aware that the SDF advances south of Mare do not fit one particular POV narrative on the topic of this article. While that particular POV narrative on the topic of this article is as intellectually legitimate as any other POV narrative on the topic of this article, this Wikipedia article itself is to maintain the NPOV standard of an encyclopedia. Please do not try to delete or bury among other information the SDF advances south of Mare. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What edit war? I simply said that an entirely separate operation shouldn't be included in this article which is the Jarabulus offensive. Unless you want to make this a more broad northern Aleppo offensive the Mare' operation shouldn't be included. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I referred to the edit that changed the date from the correct 30 August to an incorrect 31 August and buried it at the end of a lengthy paragraph quoting deliberations of some Turkish official. I do not care who made that edit or make a fuss out of it, my point here is using that example for a petition that everybody's approach to the article should be NPOV from now, not pushing particular POV narratives. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As to your comment above on the talk page to completely delete that information as alledegly not sufficiently related to the topic of the article, as I said, I strongly disagree. While an additional own article on that topic might or might not make sense, the facts should definitely be included in this article as well, as all parties to the "Jarabulus offensive" warring see these developments strongly and immediately related. And concerning the map used here, that area concerned is on the map, which (in my opinion correctly) also depicts the related Turkish army bombardment of Afrin even further to the west. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The 3 villages south of Mare' captured by SDF should be part of Manbij offensive, not this one. Also ISIS has captured 4 villages east of al-Rai so someone might want to update the map. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ISIL has also recaptured 4 villages southwest of Jarabulus. The previous source contains a map with areas recaptured by ISIL. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the meaningless "Free Syrian Army" label for the jihadi rebel factions in the box

Currently the jihadi rebel factions in this article are in the box presented under the label "Free Syrian Army" with a link to the article Free Syrian Army. However it is well known, and elaborated in that article, that "Free Syrian Army" is a label that is used by many diverse militant groups without any common coherent organizational structure or even a unified command. There definitely must be a clarification. My suggestion would be to delete the "Free Syrian Army" line completely and leave the actual groups involved. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sultan Murad, Mountain Hawks, Hamza brigade, etc. are not jihadi groups. Please revert your edit. Beshogur (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not make any edit in the article which called the mentioned groups (or any other group) "jihadi". I simply removed the meaningless and misleading label "Free Syrian Army" to let these groups stand for themselves.

However, irrelevant to the article, I disagree with your postulation that the mentioned groups were "not jihadi", all of them are self-declared followers of the totalitarian political ideology of Islamism and have the implementation of Sharia Law in Syria as their stated aim. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Those groups are the part of FSA (VSO), so you can't delete FSA "Belligerents". And they're not jihadi, can you prove it? Hamza brigade uses instruments on its videos, which is not allowed by Salafists. Beshogur (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, those groups are claiming itself as a part of FSA, so you can't delete it from the infobox. For example Sultan Murad. or this. Beshogur (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, "FSA" is not a coherent organizational structure. If you feel the need to give an overreaching label to this faction in the box, maybe the Syrian National Council or the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces might be considered appropriate, but Free Syrian Army is not.

And once again, the jihadist character of these groups is irrelevant to our discussion, because nobody has yet suggested to include such attribuion in the article. But of course I can prove it, it is most obvious and none of these groups even tries to hide it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not? How it's possible? I said before, those groups see itself as part of the Free Syrian Army. Beshogur (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ÖSO means Özgür Suriye Ordusu which means Free Syrian Army. They're claiming that FSA captures all villages near Jarabulus. here Beshogur (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox lists organised factions. "FSA" is not a coherent organizational structure but a promotional claim, that why it has no place in the infobox, no matter if the groups concerned self-attribute this promotional claim to themselves. If you feel the need to give an overreaching label to this faction in the box, please consider using one of the actual coherent organizational structures I suggested. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beshogur, it is impossible for me to understand why you and one other user obsessively delete the Sultan Murad Division ftom the list of belligerents in the infobox. Their commanders are listed in the infobox at length, you are promoting them and their participation here on the talk page, why are you against listing them? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as the rebels fight under the FSA label, they are part of it. This is especially true as the FSA is more like an alliance with limited cooperation of the member groups than a coherent organization - just like other coalitions in this war, such as the Army of Conquest, Fatah Halab and the Southern Front. Furthermore, all sources agree that the FSA is part of the offensive, regardless of its form. Applodion (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand the infobox. Under "belligerents", coherent organizational structures are listed, not promotional labels. If you feel the need to list more than the actual groups involved at that place, please consider the suggestions I made. The promotional label "Free Syrian Army" is inappropriate, it is not a coherent organizational structure. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Again: In this case, the FSA works as the name of the an alliance for the different groups that work together in course of this offensive - as many, many different sources state. They all call the Turkish-backed forces of this battle "Free Syrian Army". Just like Fatah Halab is a label that becomes meaningful when people actually organize under it, "FSA" in this case is important because the rebel groups say that they fight as part of it. Applodion (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Belligerents" in the infobox are coherent organisational structures, not deliberate association with a promotional label. I have now started our long path for formal Wikipedia dispute resolution, please abstain from further edit warring on the article page.

However, dear Applodion, one question I would wish you would answer here: It is impossible for me to understand why you and one other user obsessively delete the Sultan Murad Division from the list of "belligerents" in the infobox. Their commanders are listed in the infobox at length, why are you against listing them as "belligerents"? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Jarabulus offensive (2016) article, should the "belligerent" factions in the top left of the infobox be listed according to coherent organizational structure, or submitted under the promotional label "Free Syrian Army"? And should the Sultan Murad Division be included or excluded from the list of "belligerents"? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have said above, most rebel units involved in the offensive consider themselves part of the FSA, and fight under that name per several sources, such as western media, Turkish media and pro-government media. Thus, we should list the Free Syrian Army as "belligerent". The simple reason why the Sultan Murad Division is not needed in the "belligerents" section is that they are part of the Free Syrian Army and fight under that name in this battle - thus they should be listed under "units", as they already are. Furthermore, by putting the non-FSA units all bold, even though some of them, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are only minor participants, unjustified emphasis is put on them, so they should not be bold. Applodion (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This statement of yours makes the absurdity of that position very obvious, in my humble opinion. Suggesting that the "Sultan Murad Division is a unit of the Free Syrian Army" would obviously suggest that there is some organizational "Free Syrian Army" whom the Sultan Murad Division would take commands from and answer to. However, this clearly is not the case, as Free Syrian Army is only a promotional label and not a coherent organizational structure. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should that be suggested? One can be part of an alliance that is purely cooperative, meaning all factions involved agree to work together without anyone taking a official leadership position. Applodion (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure different belligerents (coherent organizational structures) can "be part of an alliance that is purely cooperative", the point is that the infobox should not misrepresent this state of affairs, but rather name and put in the foreground the actual belligerents (coherent organizational structures). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as they are part of the alliance, this is no misrepresention; otherwise it would be a misrepresentation that articles on World War II, to take an example, list the participants as "Allies" and "Axis", even though both of these terms applies to purely cooperative alliances with that lacked formal leadership or coherent organization, but had very significant and indepedent member states. Furthermore, I think it is disputable if a cooperative alliance cannot qualify as an "actual belligerent". In the case of this offensive, I think the actual cooperation of the different groups and the fact that they themselves so strongly identify (or claim to do so; in the end we are limited to what the sources provide, and they state it so) as "Free Syrian Army" warrants it that we list them as part of this Turkish-led alliance that sees itself as the official FSA. Nevertheless, it is important that we put no undue weight on any belligerent; if you can, for example, present a source that shows that the Sham Legion and the Zenki Movement are the primary fighters in the offensive, we should list them before the "FSA" alliance. On Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, the most important thing is that we provide sources for what we state - and in the very end, for better or worse, or if it right or wrong, almost all news outlets (exeception being pro-PYD ones) label the most important rebels in this offensive collectively as "Free Syrian Army", so we should follow their information. Applodion (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(1) We do not know the relative manpower of the different groups in the operation, Thus, all of them should be presented equally, not arbitrarily some bold and some not. If you want different treatment, the burden of proof is with you.

(2) The article on World War I which you seek to use an example does exatly what I suggest to do. It lists the separate coherent organizations (there: states) as "belligerents" in the infobox. Under this standard, the Sultan Murad Division must be put in bold into the infobox as a belligerent, as I petition it should, and a promotional label like "Free Syrian Army" can only be further information.

Just try some cooperative attitude towards an NPOV article, Applodion, do not insist that this article must perfectly fit with a particular POV narrative of your liking. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your claim that international media would call these groups "Free Syrian Army" is plain not true. I just checked the articles of top media in the last 24 hours on Google news: The New York Times speaks of "Syrian insurgents" and at only one point mentiones that some of those "brand themselves as the Free Syrian Army", and France24 calls them "pro-Ankara rebels" and does not at all mention the "Free Syrian Army" label. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to correct that, my example was the article on WW2, not WW1. Also, please try not to accuse me of trying to put a "POV narrative of your liking" into place, especially as you try to implement your opinion onto this article quite aggressively. Not that I say that your opinion is wrong, because if the other editors agree with you, I am more than happy that we change the article accordingly. Again, I for myself simply find your argumentation unconvincing, as you find mine unconvincing. In regard to the FSA label in the media; I have to excuse my poor wording in my last statement. When I wrote "almost all news outlets (exeception being pro-PYD ones) label the most important rebels in this offensive collectively as Free Syrian Army", I did not mean that they literally write "the FSA attacks the SDF", but that most of them state that many of the involved rebels see themselves belonging to the "Free Syrian Army", and we should at least try to incorporate the fact that these groups (at least claim to) work under the umbrella of an alliance called "Free Syrian Army". Naturally, some media such as pro-government agencies such as al-Masdar and Farsnews and pro-Turkish media such as Hurriyet actually call all these rebels simply FSA, but I agree with you that this is oversimplification and we must differentiate the rebel groups.

Furthermore, if we actually remove the "FSA" from the infobox, we would have to list all involved rebel groups as "belligerents", not just the most important ones, as all of them (unless they work as part of some "FSA" alliance) operate independently and thus cannot be counted as simple "units". As alternative to completely removing or keeping the FSA in the infobox, we could also try a name change. Something like "Turkish-backed rebel factions", "FSA-branded rebels factions" or something like that. Applodion (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we are approaching consensus.

we would have to list all involved rebel groups

Absolutely agree.

"Turkish-backed rebel factions", "FSA-branded rebels factions"

We could have (a) "Turkey" and (b) "Turkey-backed rebel factions", the latter then differentiated in (aa) "FSA label" and (bb) "not FSA label" or the like. If we in addition would agree that the names of the groups themselves are bold and the categoriy lines not bold, then were in perfect agreement.

Yours truly, 2A1ZA (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'd prefer the more specific names. It doesn't make much sense to me to include the FSA simply because they call themselves that. Might as well call them 'rebels' or 'humans' - it doesn't give enough discriminatory power to determine who is involved and is far to broad to be of much use. May I suggest a compromise where FSA is listed and then have sub-listings of various groups? That seems like it would satisfy both of you? Hollth (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise where FSA is listed and then have sub-listings of various groups?

Fine with me. My point about such a presentation would just be that it should not invoke the incorrect impression that "Free Syrian Army" would be a command structure where the groups listed under it take commands from and answer to a ficticious "Free Syrian Army" supreme command, but rather present it as the promotional label which it is. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lets do it like that. Applodion (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Support use of "Free Syrian Army" Current state of the Free Syrian Army article makes a strong prima facie case for using the term. The bulk of the article supports the claim that the term is meaningful. A couple sections document claims to the contrary—but those claims appear to be largely coming out of Russia, which supports Assad and therefore has an interest in de-legitimizing the Syrian opposition. Honestly those sections of the FSA article appear to have clear WP:NPOV issues, if I had more time I might try to invest in cleaning them up.

(Also the claim that there's a "consensus" on this talk page against using the term looks baseless to me.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In particlar, the FSA article classifies the Sham Legion has part of the FSA, so I think this article should as well. I'm fine with listing groups the FSA article lists as "allies" of the FSA as "other rebel groups" for purposes of this article. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sham Legion

Chris Hallquist: The FSA-article doesn't cite any source for Faylaq al-Sham being part of it. Also, in the Faylaq al-Sham there is no claim that they're part of the FSA. Furthermore, I couldn't find any article in the net stating that. Al-Masdar also clearly distinguishes between Faylaq al-Sham and FSA. In conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to put them under FSA-section. Please self-revert you at this point or discuss it here.

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labeling

I put a "neutrality disputed" label on this article for its biased pro-Turkish-Government labeling and the aggressive edit-warring of at least two editors against a more neutral labeling.

(1) The labeling on the map used follows a heavily POV narrative patterns. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is not called by its name as it is throughout Wikipedia, but rather "Daesh", which is common among those Islamists who are opposed to ISIL, because it avoids using the term "Islamic" as part of the name that ISIL itself uses. Using "PYD" (for the Democratic Union Party) instead of or in addition to "SDF" (for the Syrian Democratic Forces) is common among Turkish ultra-nationalists. Combining both mentioned ideologies is the governing AKP party in Turkey, as well as Turkey president Recep Tayyip Erdogan from their ranks. The labeling of this map perfectly reflects the POV Turkey government narrative on the topic. Even the excessive promotional labeling of the jihadi rebels under the meaningless term "Free Syrian Army" fits that POV perfectly.

(2) In the infobox top left, the "belligerent" groups in terms of highest level of coherent organizational units involved are only mentioned incompletely, Sultan Murad Division as the most relevant one completely omitted, not in bold as other factions, and superseded by the bold promotional label "Free Syrian Army", which does not denote any coherent organizational structure. One of the editors who defends this inappropriate presentation with aggressive edit-warring openly argued on the talk page that the purpose of it is to invoke the incorrect impression that the "Sultan Murad Division" would be a sub-unit of a fictional "Free Syrian Army" structure.

The "neutrality disputed" label should not be removed before these issues are resolved. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you 2A1ZA. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the Turkish involvement has to be made clear and that maps and text shouldn't follow Turkish propaganda, but present a balanced view. I disagree that the use of "Daesh" is pov, because it is used in the article about that terror organisation itself.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214 The only time Daesh is used in the article is in a statement made by Turkish government, even then ISIS is mentioned in brackets mext to Daesh. No article uses Daesh to refer to ISIS independently, though it is sometimes part of statements by other factions and countries. It cannot be used in the map. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DAESH is the Arabic name of ISIL. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can ask to the guy who made this map, to change it into ISIL instead DAESH. Beshogur (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Beshogur It's not the Arabic name of ISIL, it is an abbreviation of the name. Besides Daesh isn't used here because it has acquired a negative connotation just like the word Negro or terrorist. Although both terms are originally neutral, they have acquired negative connotations and thus are never independently used by any article on Wikipedia. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "Daesh" is only used exactly because of its derogatory meaning. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The even more important bias on the map is that the jihadi rebels groups are collectively called "Free Syrian Army", a meaningless promotional label not denoting any coherent organizational structure, while the Syrian Democratic Forces who possess a coherent organizational structure, have unwarranted additions for insinuations. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

They are part of Free Syrian Army, that's what their article says anyway. But the real problem is the non-neutraloty towards SDF and also ISIS. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with 2A1ZA, who is known to make propaganda on wikipedia and reddit for the PKK, anyway he is wrong on the whole labeling because countries, such as France and the UK also use the name DAESH or DAIS, which is basically the group's Arabic acronym for ISIL. Bradley258 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Politicians frequently use derogatory terms for factions or causes they dislike. An encyclopedia does not. And please abstain from attempts of absurd personal defamation of other editors, it only lets your arguments appear weak. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA is right. Foreign countries use the word "terrorist" as well but Wikipedia does not use it to describe anyone. Daesh can't be used here. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For record purposes, concerning this slanderous unsigned comment directed against another editor:

Dear Bradley258, I appreciate that you signed your comment now after two days, but I kindly ask you not to once again delete my comment rejecting your slanderous claim that I were "known to make propaganda on wikipedia and reddit for the PKK", which also makes you liable to civil and criminal legal action. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me help you with your psycho-analysis targetting me. I'm neither a political islamist nor an ultra-nationalist. If you'd like to know, I have never voted for AKP as well. State your opinions about factual accuracy or the issues of the map, not my personality, cause it's wrong both as a behavior and as a possibility. As the creator of the map, I have created it based on various sources, you can also follow the territorial changes on [4] Berkaysnklf (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Berkaysnklf Again you are repeating the same thing. The map of Liveua you're claiming about still has some SDF controlled parts and ISIS controlled parts in the area you have completely shown under Syrian opposition control. I was completely correct that your map is wrong. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not say anything (and absolutely do not care) about your personality, my comment is about deficiencies on this map. And my reasoned opinion is that either are factions denoted by their names, i.e. "ISIL" and "SDF", or this map must be removed as POV. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not just POV, the map is incorrect as well. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA Newsboy39 The territory of FSA on map is not larger at all, especially not larger than the one on Live UA. I have created the map using the Live UA map as a groundbase and used orthographic projection on 2 different vector graphic programmes. How can you simply state it is incorrectly larger by only using your eyesight? Have you ever simply heard of geographical scaling?

As I can see on your profiles 2a1za is Kurdish and calling things or people randomly as "Islamists" and "Jihadi" is an ongoing habit for him. I would suggest you to stop this approach, since it is wrong. Although your uncivilized way of discussion, I will further neutralize the Lejanté(Legend, place where markings are explained) part of the map tomorrow, when updating the new advancements by Turkish forces.

Also for your information, following Pentagon statement against PYD/YPG, White House further stated that "all SDF" should retreat to the west Euphrates. [5] Berkaysnklf (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not "Kurdish" but German (by citizenship as well as by ethnicity), and I kindly ask you to not try to make this a personal discussion but talk about a neutral Wikipedia article. And issue at hand is that this map uses POV labels for factions instead of their names. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Berkaysnklf For your information, the source you have pasted here is pro-Turkish. Also SDF consists of more than just YPG and Kurds, it consists of Arab fighters as well.

In addition, if you're right, then how come there are places under SDF and ISIS control in the area you have shown entirely under FSA control. I have seen it clearly.

And last of all, don't make accusations like you did to 2A1ZA. You falsely claim he has a Kurdish profile, even though he does not at all and he has a habit of calling people randomly "Islamists" or "jihadists". Even some of the sources call some of the rebel grouos with these terms. Making such false personal accusations can get you blocked. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Berkaysnklf Its a Turkish wikipedian, It will be a good thing to keep an eye on your edits.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also here's an up-to-date map from very reliable IHS Conflict Monitor in NYTimes. This too proves the map is wrong and gains of FSA shown in the map are larger than their actual gains: [6] Newsboy39 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The FSA should remain because most reliable sources does confirm major FSA involvement. However, the Sham Legion and Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki are the leading rebel factions in the operation and are not part of the FSA, while the Sultan Murad Division is. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have created the map using the live map as a groundbase. Do you know what that means? You use that as a base while drawing the vectors and the outline of the land territories on the map. Berkaysnklf (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Berkaysnklf, the comment you reply to (as well as me and most of the other comments here) is concerned with the POV labeling of the factions in the infobox and on the map, not with the map as such. It concerns the text on the map, not the map as such. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Editor abcdef:Then there is an error at the Sham legion's Wikipedia page. It says there that it's part of the FSA. However, if Nour al-Din al-Zenki and Sham Legion are the leading forces apart from Turkey, of course, then they should be above the FSA in the infobox.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you do not understand what I'm saying Berkaysnklf. Even the Liveua map you have used as a base proves your map wrong. It clearly shows places controlled by SDF and ISIL in the area which you show completely under control of FSA. Clearly you did not observe the Liveua map carefully while drawing your own map. Please correct it instead of repeatedly trying to defend your mistake. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For god's sake, can't you understand? I didn't observe the Live UA map and drew my own. I took the screen view on Live UA map and used the lines on the Live UA map ITSELF. For other people concerned about the Legend here, I will use further neutralized names when I'm creating the new map with recent changes. Berkaysnklf (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The map looks good to me (although I have no idea if it is 'correct' right now). One thing I'd suggest doing is including the date that the map roughly corresponds to in the caption. They often end up being outdated and then people take them down for being wrong. If the caption includes 'as of Aug 30' then it's clear that things may have changed and will more likely to be moved rather than deleted. Other than the map labels, was there anything else that was of NPOV concern? I see the problematic uses of Daesh have been removed. I couldn't see anything else though, I did only gloss over the article quickly. Hollth (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am updating the map as there are recent noteworthy changes, no need to worry about being up-to-date. Berkaysnklf (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Further Bias

In the "International Reactions", the opinion of a single German politician, who happens to be, together with 750 other people, a member of the European Parliament, has been cherry picked to indicate that the EU shares Turkey's ideas about where the Kurds should stay. There is no real evidence of that, and Brok, a long-time critic of Turkey, is currently in the process of cajoling it for some obscure political reason of his; the rest of the EU parliament does not seem to have a part in this. complainer (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, he is the chairman of the Europe's committee for foreign affairs, not just another member of parliament. Bradley258 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So can we say, a negative opinion from a parliamentarian of a country about Turkey targetting the YPG can represent the opinion of all the parliament and country as well? I think you should stop searching desperately for non-existing "bias". Berkaysnklf (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you don't seem to have understood my statement, or to have responded to it in any specific (or even civilized) manner, I think you're confusing me with someone else: this is my first ever post about Turkey on wikipedia. complainer (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no uncivilized approach in the question I have askes you and you can still see it as a valid question. For the last sentence, I meant the few members here who are searching for possible bias by using the word "you". Berkaysnklf (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You have hundreds of edits which, as far as I can tell, all promote Turkish or Turkmen points of view, and your first reaction is questioning my objectivity? Your actualy question still makes no sense in this context: I mentioned no "negative opinion from a parliamentarian of a country about Turkey targetting the YPG"; if it is supposed to be a counterexample, state it explicitly instead of playing riddles, and please abstain from using such expressions as "desperate" or lumping me with an imaginary cabal of Turkey haters. complainer (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear complainer, I agree with you. When I first encountered the issue, that Brok-quote was presented in a way as if he would express a collective opinion of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs which he does not, his party affiliation was not mentioned, and the whole paragraph was presented as an overreaching opinion of all European states (see here). So I at least added party affiliation and seperated the paragraph from the states, making the latter stand for themselves again. I agree with you that the presentation is still quite misleading. With respect to your question about Brok's motivation, we have federal elections here in Germany next year, and Merkel's policies towards Turkey and Erdogan prove a huge problem for the CDU with all other parties exploiting it, the guy is panicking to get Turkey out of the news in Germany. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It isn't the only problem, either. The source is some Turkish media outlet that is so fanatically devoted to the government it consistently refers to Fethullah Gülen as "terrorist Gulen"; the dubious English of the Brok quotes makes it appear like an ad hoc translation of statements taken out of context. Also the Passauer Neue Presse website doesn't make any mention of Brok whatsoever on its website, nor there seems to be any trace of it on google, opening to the possibility that the whole statement is completely fictional. complainer (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is no source other than the Daily Sabah, then it should in my humble opinion be removed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Having read the article, I think all reasonable editors would concur: this quote is obviously fictional. complainer (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Turkish-ISIS Collusion

Can we please remove this section? David Philips has a strong bias against Turkey, in another article from him, he tries to legitimize the terror group PKK and asks the US government to remove this organization from terror list. Not to mention that this part has no business in this article as its about the offensive and not about Turkish-ISIS links. It belongs in this article if the pro-pyd people insist Turkey-ISIL conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley258 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the formulation was criticisable, but I think, that parts of it should stay. It should at least be adressed that there were allegations that IS-fighters switched their uniforms, but adding that it's a pro-Kurdish claim.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A section of its own appears a bit blown out of proportion for that allegation, I tend to agree. In my opinion, one sentence on the allegation in the section on the capture of Jarabulus itself, referencing Philipps and one or two of those Kurdish sources who said it. It might make sense simply because of the fact that many people believe it, so I think it should be presented as such, portraying a widespread opinion/suspicion in some circles concerned. In my view, the fact that this story has spread so much is primarily indicative of the fact of some of those jihadi rebel groups being in the same ideological camp as ISIL. Actually if I saw the news from tonight right, there appear to be problems in the Jarabulus area right now concerning questioning loyalty of some people to ISIL. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and obsessive editing from certain users

Ever since the Neutrality and Edit limitation was lifted users such as 2A1ZA and Axxxion have changed the article in such a way that fits their point of view, they are trying to push their agenda, which can be seen from the amount of edits they have made since 31 August on this article and reactions of other Wiki users about them. I suggest adding a limitation on the amount of edits you can make on a single day or keep finding consensus before editing. Bradley258 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bradley258, several people - me included - are working to make this a NPOV Wikipedia article, against feverous POV pushing. Please read the talk page and do not make more edits which clearly go against talk page consensus as you just did in at least one case (the Brok quote). And if you have issues with the article, please talk about them on the talk page in substance. As to this "neutrality" note of yours, the fact that you do not like editors who made edits is not a substantial challenge of the article. Please present substantial issues and arguments (just as I did with my neutrality note some days ago, see above), otherwise it will be seen as abusive. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Free Syrian Army labeled rebel groups"

What's "Free Syrian Army labeled rebel groups"? What's labeled, aren't they a part of FSA? Please! Beshogur (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

pro-PYD users are in an edit war trying to turn the article in their narrative and turning into it a Frankenstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley258 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Free Syrian Army" is not a coherent organizational structure, but a promotional label and a kind of declaration to belong to a certain broad political camp. Anyone can choose or not choose to use this label for themselves, there is no authority about it. Please see this talk page above, it is discussed at length and there is consensus that "Free Syrian Army" must not be misleadingly presented as a coherent organizational structure, which it is not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So, the groups Jarabulus Military Council and Manbij Military Council are not SDF but SDF labeled groups according your mentality. Beshogur (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question to ask if the SDF is enough of a coherent organizational structure to be considered and listed as a "belligerent" in its own right. In my view, they pass the threshold. Of course this should be discussed here on the talk page if some editors have serious doubt. However, in any case the SDF has various features of a coherent organizational structure which the FSA has not, so treating those differently in this respect is definitely not per se unjustified. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, I do have issues with the presentation in the third column as well. For example, I just corrected a presentation that suggested the "International Freedom Batallion" were a unit of the SDF, which it is not, and rather listed the "International Freedom Batallion" among (supporting) belligerents in their own right. And while I have no doubt that it makes sense to list "Jarabulus Military Council" and "Manbij Military Council" as units of the SDF (both were literally created by the SDF headquarters, there is plenty media to be found reporting about it), I am not entirely happy with listing the "Army of Revolutionaries" as a sub-unit of the "Manbij Military Council", for two reasons. First, the "Army of Revolutionaries" fights in the west of the overall theater, on the Afrin front, completely independent from the "Manbij Military Council". And second, I am not sure about how the command structure of the SDF in the immediate Manbij theater actually is, in particular to what degree the "Manbij Military Council" actually has the prominent role in the command structure which the box suggests. If I would have to create that box from the scratch, I would probably list the "Army of Revolutionaries" as a unit separate from the "Manbij Military Council". But I have no convincing evidence/sources to make that change to the box. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Utopic Allegations

I see after some days the article has a PYD-point of view map, claims and even allegations about IS members changing uniforms. This article has turned into one of those funny PKK news agency reports. I suggest 'real' neutral users on this page to add reports of Al Jazeera on YPG forcing youth from Afrin to fight against FSA and also on the current dissolution in SDF since certain Arab and Turkmen groups refused to fight against FSA and called SDF to be dominated forcably by YPG. Berkaysnklf (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The allegation of "ISIL members changing uniform to become Turkey-backed jihadis" is a strong theme all around the pro-Rojava media and social media. It has been picked in some form up by quite a couple of general international media, including an essay by a reputable US academic in the field. One editor tried twice to make an own section about it. There is a discussion on the talk page about it above (with a majority positive towards getting the issue into the article). I suggested a compromise to have one neutral language and reputable sourced sentemce in the Jarabulus capture section, while deleting the own section, and implemented it. You might notice there is even "pro-Kurdish" (as you might call that) protest on my personal talk page against that. I think this compromise is fair. You may think different, but please stop to make unfounded allegations that everyone who does not share your views 100 percent must be "shilling for PKK". This is a Wikipedia article and not a battlefield. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing, on this "YPG abducting people and forcing them to fight". Rojava has conscription since 2014, pretty much like all other players (including Turkey), and it is not for the YPG in particular, my understanding rather is that joining any SDF militia (what includes YPG) makes you eligible for exemption from conscription into general Rojava defence militias (Autonomous Protection Force, local HXP or HPC). Sure those people who consider Rojava institutions illegitimate also consider conscription into their defence forces illegitimate, but the same is true for all other players (including Turkey). Let's discuss such matters with a civil attitude, worthy for editors to an encyclopedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

New name is in order

Methinks ″Jarabulus offensive (2016)″ is an outdated name for this article, as the operation is significantly wider. I would suggest moving to ″Turkish military operation in Syria (2016)″.Axxxion (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The region concerned between the Euphrates in the east and the Kurd Mountains in the west has a widely used name, Shahba region. If there is a name change, in my humble opinion, "Battle for Shahba region (2016)" would be the best name. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need smth less geographically specific. The main thing here is Turkey′s intervention. Just as we have Russian military intervention in Syria.Axxxion (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There already is an article Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an old overview article, which by the way requires update.Axxxion (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with quoting Daily Sabah as a source

Daily Sabah is becoming a source excessively quoted by some editors as a source. However, this media is a highly partisan media mouthpiece for the AKP-government in Turkey and for President Erdogan in person. See this article on "Foreign Policy about it, for example. The Daily Sabah should according to its character be considered and treated as semi-serious journalism and focused on pro Turkish AKP-government narrative pushing not unlike the role Sputnik or Russia Today have for the Russian government. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with extremist kurdish news agencies but you're against Daily Sabah. Wow very neutral! Beshogur (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely do not think that "extremist Kurdish news agencies", whatever that is supposed to refer to, should be quoted as allegedly unbiased sources. Media intimately close to and dedicated to narrate the POV of parties in the conflict, be it Daily Sabah for the AKP-government in Turkey, ANF for the PKK, Sana for the Syrian regime, or else, can be quted as references concerning their respective patrons' narratives, but not as unbiased messengers of facts about them or their opponents. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Same counts for ANHA. All these sources (Dailysabah as well) may report the truth sometimes, but they definitely present it from their point of view.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ANHA for the PYD is the same thing. However as their English-language service is a very limited and days old translation of their Arabic or Kurdish language articles, the temptation to quote them in our article here is much lower than the others mentioned. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

So long as the information used is reliable and verifiable it shouldn't matter. The pro Assad Al Masdar news and SANA have been cited loads of times already in this article not to mention the pro PKK Firat news agency is also referenced. In fact, the Daily Sabah being the only news outlet in this article that gets qualified with an assumed political bias seems to be quite weaselish. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If "the information used is reliable and verifiable", one van use a less biased source. However, concerning your allegation "the Daily Sabah being the only news outlet in this article that gets qualified with an assumed political bias" I just went through the article.

• ANF (narrating PKK perspective) is quoted like three or four times as reference, most of them perfectly legitimate to present that particular perspective. In one instance it is quoted for controversial objective facts, and that quote has the attribute "(pro-PYD claim)". Fun fact, at one point of the article, in the international law section, ANF is even used as a synonym for PKK.
• ANHA (narrating PYD perspective) is quoted three times in the article. On the first occasion the attribute in the text is "The pro-PYD Hawar News Agency claimed", on the second occasion the attribute is "Pro-PYD sources claimed", and only one reference, on the Pentagon initially being quiet, is without attribute, but this seems very uncontroversial and obvious, no idea why anyone saw the need to reference an ANHA article for that.
• Sana (narrating Syrian regime perspective) is quoted once as reference, perfectly legitimate to present that particular perspective.

So you see, the Daily Sabah just gets non-discriminatory, fair treatment now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"According to an article published in the pro-AKP Daily Sabah, Turkey launched Operation Euphrates Shield, aimed at improving security, supporting coalition forces and eliminating the terror threat along its border by using Free Syrian Army fighters backed by Turkish armor, artillery, and jets."

The purpose of this sentence appears to be to state Turkeys reasons for entering Syria. This isn't contentious or unverifiable since many sources say the same thing. To say this is according to pro-AKP Daily Sabah is unnecessary.

Absolutely disagree. The purpose of that (highly contentious) sentence in the Daily Sabah is not "to state Turkeys reasons for entering Syria", but to present an made up propaganda narrative for such reasons. Every single point in that sentence is propaganda bullshit, other than you claim no single serious source on planet Earth "says the same thing", and in my humble opinion the whole sentence should be completety removed from the article. "Improving security" is a weasel formulation which says nothing, "supporting coalition forces" is cynical nonsense as the only coalition forces on the ground (SDF) are targeted, "eliminating the terror threat" makes no sense for targeting SDF which the entire world agrees has never done anything terror against Turkey, "using Free Syrian Army fighters" is propaganda nonsense as "FSA" is a promotional label not a coherent military structure and the vast majority of the jihadi rebels that Turkey seeks to put in control do even reject that promotional label. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The second use of pro-AKP Daily Sabah is "the pro-AKP Daily Sabah newspaper claimed that after two days of conflict, a SDF group based in Tell Abyad, the Liwa al-Tahrir, had defected from the SDF and joined the FSA groups in Jarabulus." This is even more absurd. Firstly the link is to another story, secondly if you google for the article headline, "Arab group leaves Kurdish YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces" the story was actually written in Al-Masdar news

Not that it should matter anyway, it's not an unverifiable or biased story since it is well documented groups are leaving the SDF. I will fix this sentence with the correct citation.

However, as for "The pro-PYD Hawar News Agency claimed", the rest of the sentence is "later on that Turkish artillery had shelled the SDF-held village of Dandaniyah with chemical weapons". Since this is unverified by anyone else and the source is unreliable then if you felt it needs to be included it should definately be described as a politically biased source.

"Pro-PYD sources claimed that clashes had broken out among FSA groups in Jarabulus." Again like the previous example its only claimed by pro PYD sources, is unverified and if you feel it needs to be included then the reader should be made aware of the biases from the source of the claim.

So what's the problem? The Daily Sabah citation is not contentious and can be verified with other sources and it's unnecessary to use "according to pro AKP daily Sabah..." or even mention the paper in the body of the article. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As I demonstrated to you above, at least one of the Daily Sabah quotes in the article is highly contentious. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in one instance it is the others not. That's my point, if it's material from one source that's unverifiable then the source should be stated if you think it merits an inclusion into the article. But if the material can be verified from a number of sources then there is no reason to include just one paper in the body of the article whatsoever. It does come across suspicious when you insist on using a particular source for widely reported instances to try and make it appear to be a claim from a dubious source. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So we are talking about those 50 "Liwa al-Tahrir" folks who are disappointed that Rojava has a civil administration and hope that Turkey will be more sympathetic to their dream of rule by warlordism. The fact that these folks defected from SDF to become "Turkey-backed rebels" is not disputed by anyone. However the spin people seek to give the event is highly contentious. I find it extremly unfortunate that the articles that were/are used as references on the matter are first the Daily Sabah, second a media you yourself has called an Assad mouthpiece on this very talk page, and third an openly racist Arab supremacist fringe publication. As far as I can see, the wording in this article on the matter after numerous edits is quite NPOV for now. But can't we just link better sources? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Brok "reaction" apparently made up by Daily Sabah

Further up this talk page is discussion of the Brok "reaction" apparently made up by Daily Sabah. It is now as a compromise included in the article but presented as a claim by the Daily Sabah, let's keep things like that and do no more edit war about it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: The "Free Syrian Army" does not exist as an organization. There is consensus about that. Please stop POV edit-warring to present it as what it is not

Infobox: The "Free Syrian Army" does not exist as an organization. Please stop edit-warring about that. We have after long discussions here on the talk page reached consensus that the promotional label must not be presented as a fictional organizational structure in the infobox. Please stop edit-warring about it, or we will have to ask for protection of the article against edits again. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

To make it easier for new editors to find previous discussions on this talk page, which led to a consensus that "Free Syrian Army" must not be mis-presented as a organizational structure or "belligerent" in the infobox, here are links:

• Discussion "Deleting the meaningless "Free Syrian Army" label for the jihadi rebel factions in the box"
• Discussion "Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labeling"

Please read it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As user User:Beshogur continues to undo every attempt to implement the talk page consensus, I see no way other than to request full protection of the article again. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As the infobox has been both correct in labeling and quiet for an hour now, dear Beshogur, there are some (correctly presented) groups mentioned now in the infobox as belligerents, who are not mentioned in the source which is referenced for their participation. In particular Mountain Hawks Brigade and Levant Front are not mentioned in the source given for their participation, and for the participation of Hamza Division and Tahrir Brigade there is no reference given at all. However, the Levant Front appears to be mentioned in the source that is given for the Al-Moutasem Brigade. Are there sources one can quote for Mountain Hawks Brigade and Hamza Division and Tahrir Brigade? Are we sure that these groups participate? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow the Twitter accounts of those groups, you will see it.

Edit: I will add Turkish sources about those groups. Beshogur (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do not know the twitter accounts of those groups, and I cannot verify their authenticity. The "Liberation Front" appears to refer to those 50 guys who defected from an SDF-group, if they are independent now, fine. But the Wikipedia page of Hamza Division redirects to Youth of Sunna Forces, which are a group in Southern Syria, fighting in the Southern Front context. I find it highly improbable that their forces are in Jarabulus now. Are you really sure they are? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beshogur, you now give a link to an article where some Turkey military guy appears to state that a "Hamza Brigade" (Google translation) participates, but are you sure that this is the same group as the Youth of Sunna Forces in southern Syria, to which the Wikipedia link under their name points? It appears that this is probably not the case, and might make sense to remove that link. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check the article Hamza Division (Aleppo). Beshogur (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR restriction reminder

I've been asked to protect this article once again from edit warring. I did it last time in lieu of blocking everyone involved for violation of the 1RR restriction on this page as indicated by the big alert box at the top of this talk page.

I see that good faith gesture hasn't done much good, so here it is: This is your final warning. The next 1RR violation earns a block of no less than a week, and that starts with every edit in the last 24 hours.

Everyone who has edited the page in the last 24 hours who has not been previously notified (that I can determine) will get a template notice shortly. If I give you a notice and you have received it before, my apologies, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. It's not enough that you receive a simple message on your talk page; the template notice is required, per WP:GS/ISIL#Remedies.

You all know better. Start doing better. Katie^talk 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why alter FSA group

Why are people changing FSA to FSA labeled groups? The FSA exists otherwise people wouldn't be calling themselves part of it. Renaming it to FSA labeled groups removes the flag in belligerents and seems awkward especially considering we have allowed them in previous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepigthatisawsome (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see discussion here, above in this talk page:

• Discussion "Deleting the meaningless "Free Syrian Army" label for the jihadi rebel factions in the box"
• Discussion "Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labeling"

I would very much appreciate it if further discussion would build on that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Thepigthatisawsome. In most conflict/battle/offensive articles on Syrian Civil War, FSA is used in belligerents including varying groups (mostly same with the ones taking part here). For the simple fact that these groups(most of them) call themselves part of "FSA", whether it is organized officially or not, I also think they should be listed under FSA umbrella. Unless there is a rebel group which clearly states that "they are not part of FSA" or "they are against the idea of a FSA", groups should be listed under FSA as belligerent. If there is a rebel group who states "they are not FSA" or "they reject the FSA", that rebel group can be listed in same column with FSA as a seperate entity. The groups in the offensive are collectively referred as FSA in various global news and reports as well. Furthermore, the political leaders of the opposition has been referring to the situation as with the case with many FSA offensives. So, I also think FSA should be a belligerent and groups (as long as they don't state they are not FSA) should be listed under it. Berkaysnklf (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Those groups are "collectively referred as FSA" only in Turkish media, but not in media outside Turkey. The point simply is that "FSA" is not a coherent organizational structure of any kind, it cannot be a "belligerent". And the simple fact that anyone can use and drop this promotional label, and groups on several sides in the conflict in this article do, impressively demonstrates the point. However, as to your point that "the political leaders of the opposition has been referring to the situation", I have already in the discussion above suggested to name the Syrian National Council or the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as belligerents, if it appears suitable, because these at least are organizational structures with a certain degree of coherence and authority. Would you consider if one of those would be suitable? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Even when its not an organizational structure, its still an umbrella allegiance and several international reports including from Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera referred to the operation with expressions such as "Turkey and Turkish-backed FSA groups", and if we are to use it as 'FSA-labelled' because of your notion that they do not possess a solid, organized structure, then it should be that way in all Syrian Civil War articles. They carry the same flags and most of those groups declared theirselves as part of the FSA movement independently from this offensive. So, even when your suggestion for using Syrian Opposition political structures makes sense, I still say that articles should have FSA as belligerent, and the groups who declared theirselves as part of it should be listed beneath, just like in most other SCW articles. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is not the word "labeled" in the sub-headline, if everybody could else could live with deleting that word, I could live with it. The point is the dots (or any other form of presentation) which indicate organizational sub-units. Such dots (or any other form of presentation to the same effect) would create a misleading propaganda narrative, a politically motivated scam on Wikipedia users, a serious corruption of the encyclopedia. And everybody knows it. And that's why is must not be done. If it has been done in other articles, that was a mistake. But we must not repeat that mistake here, or anywhere, in the future. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of chemical weapons use

I think this claim should be removed since the only source for it is the YPG. None of the human rights groups in Syria, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Syrian Civil Defense or Human Rights Watch even mention it. It appears to be disinformation from one of the belligerents in the conflict. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's getting funny. Please make the necessary edits. Berkaysnklf (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it another day. If no one can provide a verifiable source for this that doesn't emanate from the YPG tweet, I'll remove the text. Black Goat Nomad (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Black Goat Nomad (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

We need a Separate article for "Battle of Jarablus"

We need a Separate article for the Battle of Jarablus (2016), This article will be too long with the continuing Turkish intervention, we should move all info about Jarablus there and leave a summary here. like the case in Russian intervention. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The battle of Jarabulus city itself was merely 2 days without much casulties, so I don't think it would warrant a separate article. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The article itself was earlier named Battle of Jarabulus. But the aim of the offensive is much more than just Jarabulus. Also like Editor abcdef the battle lasted a day or 2 without much casualties. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Jarablus doesn't only involve the city only but all surrounding areas in Jarabulus District and that took 10 days 3bdulelah (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan isn't unrecognised

Iraqi Kurdistan is officially recognised as an autonomous region by both Iraq and USA and is recognised as such in the Iraqi constitution. It's not a country and never was and its status as an autonomous region isn't disputed. It shouldn't be under unrecognised regions as it is recognised as an autonomous region of Iraq by the government of Iraq and its constitution. Newsboy39 (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, Editor abcdef, Ermanarich Can you comment on the above mentioned issue about Iraqi Kurdistan? Newsboy39 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing it to "partially recognized regions and governments" would be fine. Since the SNC is recognized as the de jure government of all of Syria by more than 80 states. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole category of "recognized" versus "unrecognized" in not appropriate, in my humble opinion. Recognized by whom? Recognized as what? Make it "UN member states" versus "other regional actors", and fine. That would solve pretty much all issues. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

More Intense Shelling in Afrin and Claims that Turkish Army Entered into Afrin region

It is confirmed that 6 PYD members have been taken down in Afrin by SDF sources. And it is also confirmed shelling and targetting intensified. What's more is, there are several claims that Turkish army entered into Afrin region from Akmeydan (Meydan Akbiz). It can be discussed if the confirmed news should be included in the article. Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Start of the Return of Irregular Refugees to the areas cleansed by Turkish forces

Really worth a mention. Al Jazeera ABC

Furthermore, I'm deleting the pro-PYD claim that 3000 civilians fleed Jarabulus since there are no other sources than YPG sources and all international reliable sources report that life is returning to normal in Jarabulus, Çobanbey and the surrounding region and refugees want to and are starting to return to these areas. Middle East Eye Anadolu Agency Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey-SDF combat seems to be history for now, Turkey appears to agree

I will leave it to others to update the article, but it should reflect the fact that Turkey-SDF combat appears history. With the US administration putting US special forces at the Sajur river (people in the Manbij region even reportedly putting up US flags in gratitude), and then giving air support to the SDF's Western Al-Bab offensive (which they had never done before to an SDF offensive from Afrin Canton), the borders in Shahba region both geographically and politically became set. And today Turkey state Anadolu Agency puts up a map which appears to rewrite history and suggest that there had been no fight for territory with the SDF at all. I appreciate it, and think we have to state that the US administration managed the affair better than initially received by the international public (including many editors here, including me). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so. Beshogur (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish policy is oscillating between (a) the idea of total war against KCK and (b) the idea of US-brokered peace. For the time being, variant (b) is at an all-time high. With this result, I start to like the Jarabulus offensive. To once explicitly state my personal stance on issues here, my personal wish for the region is effective cooperation of secular, pro-enlightenment, pro-modernization forces in overcoming islamist, anti-enlightenment, anti-modernization forces. And I am cautiously confident that the bottom line of this affair is a step in the right direction. Anyway, we will see. Enough talk about personal bias now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey has been saying that since 2012, really. Doesn't mean that it's more than empty rhetoric and Turkey is actually going to wipe out the SDF. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, just a reminder you don't need to reply to others for justifying you are not biased. In addition whatever you're stance in real life, always have neutral stance in your edits. If someone again accuses you of being biased simply tell them to stay focused on the article, not on accusing others continuously. If they still continue simply report them to administrators as their bad faith accusations are against rules. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As stated for almost 1 year, Turkey will not allow either PYD/PKK to control a united belt or ISIS/DAESH to have a hold next to its borders. So, in my opinion, all the area in northern Aleppo will be Rebel controlled, and kind of like Turkish satellite region. This will include Manbij too, for sure. Erdoğan's response to US officials saying YPG left the area, which was "So now FSA can take over Manbij without resistance", points out to that clearly. And looking at recent SDF statements, the idea of uniting the so-called cantons are already over. Not sure if this offensive will somehow include Afrin too, as sometimes Turkish state officials say "all of" the east of Euphrates on purpose and Turkish army occasionally keeps targetting Afrin. This is what I think on how the matter will evolve. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I find the question if and how consequential future Syria will be secular the most important one, and for me this is the topic by which to judge Turkish policy. For the time being, the Turkish prime minister and foreign minister in a total turnaround from the islamist Davutoglu policies claim that Syria must be secular. I find this not yet really credible as long as Turkey supports jihadi rebels against the SDF, but maybe the painful learning process Turkey's foreign policy has been going through this past year will bear real consequential fruit. I hope it for Turks even more than for Syrians. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Must "Liwa al-Tahrir" aka "Liberation Brigade" be in the third as well as the first column of the infobox?

"Liwa al-Tahrir" aka "Liberation Brigade" used to be a bunch of some 100 to 200 somewhat tribal ethnic Arab folks in Northern Raqqa governorate, led by a village warlord under the name of Abdul Karim Obeid. When the region became a place of YPG versus ISIL, they chose YPG, joined Euphrates Volcano and fought some battles with them, and after the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were founded, they soon became a member there.

However, Abdul Karim Obeid always disliked the idea of civil administration of Rojava, which the SDF serves, because it put so much constraints on the warlordist lifestyle. So when recently opportunity came, with 50 of his men he defected to the "Turkish-backed rebels" where independent warlordism is still cherished. The event is boldly part of this article, and "Liwa al-Tahrir" is listed as "Turkish-backed rebels" group, "FSA labeled", in the infobox.

However, it now explicitly emerges with photo evidence that the remaining majority of "Liwa al-Tahrir" members still consider themselves a proud part of the SDF. Should the text of the article be adjusted? Should "Liwa al-Tahrir" be listed as a unit of the SDF in the infobox as well? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Proud" :D Berkaysnklf (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We can add Liberation Brigade to both (Turkey and rebel groups - SDF) as belligerent. Maybe? Beshogur (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The pro-SDF members of Liwa al-Tahir aren't present in the Jarabulus and Manbij fronts, only in the Raqqa Governorate. So no, the brigade isn't present on both sides of the offensive, only in the pro-Turkey side. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Either deleting the term "PYD" from the labeling of the map or adding "AKP" after Turkey

Dear Berkaysnklf, it is a week now since you were kind enough to correct the then outrageous POV labeling of the map to a somewhat more NPOV state. However, one major issue is left, namely the term "including PYD" after "SDF". The PYD is a political party, not an armed force. If you actually want to denote the political party leadership behind groups, unusual in any case, then please denote those parties correctly and uniformly. In the case of the SDF it would be "politically led by TEV-DEM" or "politically led by TEV-DEM/PYD" and in the case of Turkey "politically led by AKP". Whatever you choose about that, pretending against reality that the PYD were a militia and not a party is so absurd POV that in my humble opinion it is not acceptable for a Wikipedia map. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear 2A1ZA, a badge of the PKK's jailed leader Abdullah Öcalan was found on the YPG militants who killed one Turkish soldier during the clash with the Turkish Armed Forces in Amarnah a couple of days ago. In addition, two PKK terrorists who carried out a suicide attack in Turkey on behalf of the PKK were trained in the YPG ranks and entered Turkey from Syria. Moreover, the PKK's senior commander, Duran Kalkan, announced that he would transfer more forces to Syria. Considering the political brains behind the YPG are the PYD, there is no harm in calling them terrorist organisations. Thank you for your kind attention to details. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you did not understand my point. The point is that "PYD" is a political, not a military organization, and there is not a single fighter in the SDF who would give his/her unit as "PYD", just like there is no single fighter within the TSK who would give his/her unit as "AKP". And the map labeling should be correct in this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

PYD is an organization using a political umbrella for its terrorist actions-planning. Besides, since PYD/YPG withdrawal from SDF ranks (both politically and militarically) is a major issue, the map will stay this way as SDF still includes PYD politically and YPG as manpower in area west of Euphrates.

For the shelling of South Sajur, yeah Turkish or FSA forces occasionally target the south as harrassment fire. Berkaysnklf (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that it makes sense to put that "(including YPG)" label behind "SDF", so that the reader better understands the map. The point is that "PYD" is a political organization/party and not a militia and not a component of the SDF, there is not a single fighter in the SDF who would give his/her unit affiliation as "PYD".

If you absolutely want to include governing political parties behind belligerents on the map labeling, I suggested the compromise to put such behind all factions in the labeling, and do it in a correct manner, see above. However, a labeling that is openly POV cannot be used in Wikipedia. If you insist on the labeling that mis-represents "PYD" as a militia component of the SDF, then in my humble opinion the map must be removed from this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces -> SDF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Protection_Units -> YPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria) -> PYD

Adding the links to the respective Wikipeda articles for "SDF", "YPG", "PYD". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there jihadi/Turkish attacks across the Sajur river?

The most recent version of the map used in this article still suggests jihadi/Turkish attacks (artillery?) across the Sajur river. Is that reality-based? As to my knowledge, the embedding of U.S. special forces with the SDF units south of the river brought such attacks to a complete standstill a week ago. Does the mapmaker Berkaysnklf have other information about that? If not, would he correct the map? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't call opositon fighters jihadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.103.90 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Berkaysnklf, if I take your answer from below that there would be "occasional harrassment fire" (I do not know if this is true), but that you agree that there were no combat of any kind, would it then not be imperative to at least remove the arrow that points south towards the Sajour river? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox be at the top of the article as MOS:INFOBOX says? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

EU reactions, Mr Elmar Brok

Apparently my compatriot Mr Elmar Brok actually voices the opinion that the Euphrates river were and should be the border between "Turkish" and "Kurdish" territories. While I will with much self-discipline not give a personal assessment of this position or of the idea of voicing it, I removed the respective "According to Daily Sabah" qualification in the article. However, as this position as to all my knowledge is rather fringe in the European Parliament or EU institutions in general, one might wish that the "EU reactions" paragraph would be completed with more representative positions. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Liwa al-Fatah (Brigade of Conquest)

Do anyone have a source about the flag? Beshogur (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm actually not sure if it exists at all, since it is not mentioned in the source which claims to say it is active there. At least I couldn't find its name there.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's just that Liwa al-Fatah's logo happens to have the Tawhid flag. You can remove it if you want since it's not their actual flag. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

They left Ahrar al-Sham long time ago and joined the FSA I guess. Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding new sub-section in article after elimination of ISIS controlled areas along Turkish-Syrian border

There should be a new section after the one where all ISIS controlled territory was captured by Turkish-backed rebels. The objective for Turkish military entering the al-Rai front was linking rebel-controlled al-Rai to Jarabulus. As that has been accomplished, their next objective is al-Bab. So there should be a new sub-section for the al-Bab front. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not so sure that there is an actual operative push for al-Bab going on right now. Better keep the headline conservative, whatever it shall be. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Their offensive seems to be in that direction. Besides both rebels and Turkey have stated its their next target. Newsboy39 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait until the offensive actually started, not speculations. As of now there's only border operations. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reduction of the text to make it readable & the uniform change-allegiation

Two things from my side.

First is, that we rather need to shorten the text or split it into more, better readable parts. Especially the later events and the international reactions are extremely excessive. We need to reduce both and I'd suggest to remove reactions of countries like the Netherlands or Israel and also the statement by Elmar Brok.

I disagree, we should keep the reactions as it gives the reader a view of what the actors in the conflict think. However, I am against the addition of the reaction of a prominent fighter within ypg etc or some neglible brigade.Bradley258 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, since the allegiations of uniform change got new fuel after the interview published by The Independent, I think it's time to open a new section about it.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Hours later, the US troops on gun trucks and some Turkish tanks withdrew from al-Rai back into Turkey"

They didn't withdrew, it was just escorting with the US special forces to the Turkish border again to prevent any conflict. Beshogur (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In any case, they and we all now know what the Free Syrian Army labeled guys have in store for us "infidels", namely "slaughter" us. Not that I needed this clarification, but some in the audience still gave them (unwarranted) benefit of doubt before these news came up. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "us"? Also the guys in the other pickup trucks following the Americans are also part of the FSA, so it isn't that one-sided. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "us"?

All those human beings on planet Earth who do not self-identify as "Muslim". Us "infidels", in the terminology of the Free Syrian Army and of all Islamists. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading these, I'm really starting to think that 2A1ZA can possibly be the most POV editor here. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Shortening reactions?

Quite some people think that shortening the "reactions" section might be a good thing. However, every attempt to do so until now has only been done with an obvious POV agenda. So let us discuss proper shortening. Here are my two cents:

(1) What definitely must stay is an overwiew over the positions/perspectives of the major states/actors concerned, both influential states and immediately concerned actors, in a way that the reader can substantially understand what these positions/perspectives are.

(2) What can easily go in my opinion is the paragraphs for "reactions" of countries who are not really relevant to the issue.

(3) What definitely should go in my opinion is the picking of quotes which try to give the impression that "the world and in particular the West agrees that PYD/TEV-DEM/Rojava/YPG/SDF is a terrorist thing and that Turkey should destroy it". This is ficticious propaganda, this is not what any serious politician "in the West" thinks or says, and the "reactions" section should not try to give the impression that this ficticious propaganda narrative were true. Actually both in the diplomatic arena and even militarily on the ground, pretty much everyone "in the West" tells Turkey to leave "PYD/TEV-DEM/Rojava/YPG/SDF" alone, or even better start a constructive dialogue with it.

(4) And one sentence in the reactions is so absurdly propaganda that it should definitely be deleted, namely "Barzani's political affiliation, KDP, doesn't recognize PYD as representative of Kurds in Syria." This sentence not only has nothing to do with "reactions" on the topic of the article, it only consists of absurd propaganda insinuations.

I would appreciate it if there could be a consensual shortening under NPOV criteria. While my optimism is limited, hope dies last. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Those are what Barzani "said" to Le Monde. The KDP-PYD conflict may or may not be relevant and may or may not stay. However what's there are facts, things which have been said. Seljuk Brigade of SDF made those statements against Turkey but they are there since they have been said and no one blames that as POV. Things which Barzani said are not POV as well. For shortening topic; I also agree reactions of countries like Netherlands, Bulgaria, Cyprus can be deleted. And some information on PYD's reactions are just repeating, so it can also be shortened. Furthermore, the statements of British fighter among YPG which goes like "now that secular Kurds are advancing, Turkey wants to intervene" is definitely POV and that should be excluded. Berkaysnklf (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course all these quoted reaction statements are "POV", that is their point. My criticism of this concrete one sentence concerning the general attitude of the Iraqi Kurdistan KDP party towards the Syrian/Rojavan PYD party is that it is unrelated to the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. It is not a "reaction" on the latter, and thus it is not appropriate to list it under "reactions" in this article. Never mind that it is nonsense in substance anyway, neither does the PYD (who actually was the single most important factor in creating the multiparty system of Rojava) consider itself the representative of all Kurds in Syria, nor the representative of ethnic Kurdish population to the exclusion of others - this kind of ultra-nationalist perspective is the worldview of the KDP, not the worldview of the PYD. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, let us delete the comments of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Netherlands and extract the KDP piece from North Iraq section and British fighter from PYD section. Berkaysnklf (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat disagree. I do not think this should be a "negotiation" on tit-for-tat removal of "reaction" section elements which diverse editors "dislike much". What is needed in my humble opinion is NPOV criteria for what gets in and what gets deleted. I stated my opinion on such criteria above, it should be (1) reflection on the relevance of the state or non-state actor concerned in general, as to if a statement from this state or non-state actor makes sense in general, and (2) the desire to paint an accurate and authentic picture of the positioning of/within the respective relevant state or non-state actors. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And to leave no misunderstanding as to my opinion what should be corrected most urgently, that has nothing to do with KDP, this is (as I alreadey stated above) everything which tries to invoke the incorrect and ficticious propaganda impression that "the West agrees that PYD/TEV-DEM/Rojava/YPG/SDF is a terrorist thing and that Turkey should destroy it". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Supported By"

I don't think so, USA is directly involved by the Turkish-FSA side. Beshogur (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Around 50 special forces which officials say number is likely to increase for Bab operation, and repeated calls against YPG/PYD. Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still support as the US forces haven't actively shot at ISIL forces yet, but only does minesweeping in the captured towns. Also here are US forces on both sides. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of the "Turkmen majority" areas map in doubt concerning Manbij

Dear Berkaysnklf, leaving all the problems with "ethnic majority maps" in general aside, I think it might be á nice idea to include such a map, just like other maps illustrating strategic considerations of actors (islamist ISIL and secular polyethnic Rojava having other kinds of considerations than ethnicity). However, while most of this map is grosso modo in line with what I know on the topic, the depiction of the city of Manbij as "majority Turkmen" obviously is completely false. All sources give the ethnic composition of Manbij as around one third Arab Syrian and Arab, one third Circassian and one third Kurdish, with negligible minorities of Armenians and Turkmen. If the map is not corrected in this point, in my humble opinion it must be removed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

To underline my point, here is the Columbia University map which you yourself quote as your source. It gives the whole Manbij area as majority mostly Kurdish and in some areas Circassian. Not Turkmen at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see on the various resources I have given for the work, the map is based on scientific works independent from each other. Furthermore, Manbij is not marked as "Turkmen majority", it is marked as "significant Turkmen presence". Although Michael Izady's comprehensive work shows Manbij city and surroundings as Circassian, Arab and Kurdish, the other reports I have included mention Turkmens live in small pockets around Manbij and is a minority big-enough-to-mention in the city. The recent news report by Jersualem Post also mentions about Manbij "belonging to Arabs and Turkmen". Factual accuracy of the map is correct and for the time; even though the area may be subject to ethnic cleansing by various organizations such as ISIL, YPG and the like; the map reflects the outcome of a number of varying quality sources. And, since Turkmens in the area can be described as the focusing point of Turkey's national interests and the main driving force of the military intervention, it is vital to inform the reader about this situation in the preparations part. Berkaysnklf (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The city of Manbij is clearly marked as "Turkmen majority" on your map, just as its surroundings to the north. I spent one hour going through all of your sources. Not a single one makes such a claim. Please correct the map in this point, which you know is false, or it must be removed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

City of Manbij has stripes which indicate urban presence, you can learn about the pocket of Turkmen villages north of Manbij by following the sources from ground. Maps of Turkmen villages (before the war) clearly show the pockets I'm mentioning to you. In fact, I didn't even marked all the villages since I've only found majority information regarding those small areas. Furthermore, this report also mentions about Turkmen villages on Bab countryside, however it's in Turkish. Just to make it clear again, city of Manbij is not shown as "Turkmen majority", it has stripes which indicate "urban presence". Berkaysnklf (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your map labeling says that coloured areas would mark "Turkmen majority" areas. We all know that the area just to the north of Manbij is far from being "Turkmen majority". We all, you included, know that. Your map is intentionally distorting the truth. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that other ethnic groups in northern Aleppo, i.e. Arabs and Kurds, also be included in the map. Without them it greatly overestimates the Turkmen presence in Aleppo and Manbij, with them being minorities although in the map blue is shaded into 50% of the circles. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it may work out. However really, why I created the map was to show the possible correlation between Turkmen population in the region and Turkish military intervention. Besides, shading of circles is explained in the map as "urban presence", and they are either 2nd or 3rd ethnic group in cities which they are shaded. So, I still think it doesn't pose any significant inaccuracy. Berkaysnklf (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In Manbij, Turkmen are not "the 2nd or 3rd ethnic group", but according to all sources they are a quantitatively negligible minority like Armenians, with the city composed of ethnic Arab Syrians, Kurds and Circassians around a third each. It does make a major and inacceptable inaccuracy to present Manbij more or less as "a Turkmen city", which is absurdly far from the truth. I am fully aware that Erdogan has told this lie to the Turkish public, but if anything, this Wikipedia article should presenr that lie as what it is, not try to cover it up. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the way you speak NPOV. Anyways, since the sources I have provided mainly revolve around "Turkmen villages in Manbij/Bab countryside" and since showing of the factual urban 'presence' gave a wrong impression to you like showing "as a Turkmen city" (just to you, though); I will do the edit for Manbij city and its close vicinity tomorrow. Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Spending quite amount of time reading and searching, I have updated the Turkmen map with changes to cease the impression for Manbij and its vicinity, although Turkmens also compose a part of society of the city region. Furthermore, updating the main intervention map and correcting the usage of PYD and the militant wing; YPG, I have uploaded it back onto the page. Berkaysnklf (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus to use this more WP:CONCISE title. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Turkish military intervention in Syria – WP:CONCISE (i.e. American-led intervention in Syria). – 99.8.13.120 (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The title "Turkish military intervention in Syria" is ambiguous. Syria what exactly? When did it happen? The current title clearly states in what they are intervening, ie. the Syrian civil war. Hence I am against the move. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm supporting this notion. Turkish military is not a combatant in the wider Syrian Civil War, however it is intervening (in)to Syria. And it is a clearer title. I'm in favor. Berkaysnklf (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.