Talk:Turkish occupation of northern Syria/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Turkish occupation of northern Syria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Title
Two similar articles: In Palmyra offensive (2017) it reads:The Syrian Army, with Russian reinforcement, succeeded again in recapturing the beleaguered city of Palmyra. Well this article is almost the same, if you change Syrian army to Free Syrian Army and Russian reinforcement to Turkish reinforcement. But for some reason the title is Turkish occupation. I tried to move the title. But it is immediately reverted. Without any warring please explain why. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
We see the name of this article as an ENEMY ATTACK against Turkey!
Böri (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please use valid arguments when participating in the talk page. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- You are acting like the CIA agents! Böri (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- These days, a flea biting Erdogan on the butt would be accused of being an agent of an enemy attack against Turkey! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't support Erdoğan. You should think about your own leaders (Trump and others).... / and you're not writing as an encyclopedist! Böri (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and is not a political forum. Maybe you should take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines before saying stuff like this. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- You're talking like that. Böri (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and is not a political forum. Maybe you should take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines before saying stuff like this. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge
The article Safe Zone (Syria) is clearly the background to the Turkish invasion, being de-facto implemented as Turkish occupation of North Syria. It is not notable on its own right. Suggest to merge.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The content of Safe Zone (Syria) should be merged into this article. The two subjects are essentially the same - they don't exist independently of each other. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
DoneGreyShark (dibra) 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Bias
Article contains many bias against the syrian opposition,i recommend that the article is revised.Alhanuty (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate further? What part of this article contain bias against the Syrian opposition? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral moves in this page
Please do not unilaterally move this page without a through discussion and a clear consensus here in the talk page. From the discussions above, it's clear that there are disagreements and no clear consensus here. I'm pinging more users involved within the scope of the Syrian conflict so there will be an actual discussion with a greater variety of viewpoints, sorry if I missed anyone here: @Greyshark09:, @Akocsg:, @SilentResident:, @Nedim Ardoğa:,@EkoGraf:, @LightandDark2000:, @Beshogur:, @Applodion:, @Bobfrombrockley:, @Bulbajer:, @Axxxion:, @Mr.User200:, @Deathlibrarian:, @El C:, @Berkaysnklf:, @Catlemur:, @MonsterHunter32:, @Mehmedsons:, @Çakır:, @Ferakp:. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, I would just request page move protection for now. If this conflict continues, it will only serve to generate further disruption. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should unmerge the article Safe Zone (Syria), which may resolve part of the problem. Until several months ago - Turkish-occupied area was the only Safe Zone in Syria, but now we have several.GreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with both LightandDark2000 and GreyShark's reasonable suggestions and proposals. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 10:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- yep, I agreee with the above - page move protection sounds like a good idea, and unmerging the safe zone aspect. I would be concerned about this page being moved, considering the disagreements and the political views of some editors on here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I also agree with both. Bulbajer (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- yep, I agreee with the above - page move protection sounds like a good idea, and unmerging the safe zone aspect. I would be concerned about this page being moved, considering the disagreements and the political views of some editors on here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting, same POV people contributing here. The title is obviously not neutral to start with. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with both LightandDark2000 and GreyShark's reasonable suggestions and proposals. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 10:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is biased
You could say the same about Russia, Iran, the US and any other state that is currently supporting a militant group in Syria. For instance, the SDF-held regions are US occupied regions, according to the logic of this article. In addition, the sources for this claim are heavily anti-Turkish. This is not Wiki standard.
Please delete this article. Thanks.88.69.6.117 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, it is not the same. This occupation zone is directly run by Turkey: Turkey governs the area, controls its armed forces and police, and has even started to integrate the region's economy and education into its own system. Does the United States command the SDF? No. Does Russia command Assad? No. Are English or Russian troops commanding, not just supporting, SDF or Syrian Army forces? Also no. So there is very, very big difference between the Turkish occupation and the rest of Syria. In some years the occupation zone might morph into something like Northern Cyprus which is an indepedent state in almost every way (even though people still wrongly treat it as Turkish occupation zone or client state), but this kind of change has not yet occurred in northern Syria. Applodion (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Double Standards
We have a page named: Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, We never named it American Occupation of Northern Syria, we never created pages about a Russian and Iranian occupation of Certain parts of Syria, Even the Article about the Golan hight doesn't include "Israeli occupation" in the title, this talk page is full of people disagreeing with title which should be changed and no one is willing to discuss that! We already have a page about the Syrian Interim Government and Syrian opposition 3bdulelah (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. This was discussed a million times, but okay: The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is a self-proclaimed, unrecognized proto-state, meaning that it functions like a state and also maintains to be a state within a state (namely a sub-state of Syria). It is not an occupation zone, because the American gov or anyone else (with the execption of the PKK) have no direct control over the DFNS' government. Russia and Iran have not occupied anything in Syria, they have military bases and a number of proxy militias, and these we have articles. Furthermore, articles about the Israeli occupation exist, see Israeli-occupied territories, and Northern District (Israel). Now why do we need an article about the Turkish occupation you ask? Well, because the occupation zone has an unique, mixed government of native councils and Turkish influence (and it is currently "quasi-annexed" by Turkey), it has a distinct military force, and the Syrian Interim Government/Syrian opposition claims to rule all of Syria - not just the north - so they are not the same as the occupation zone. In case that the government of the Turkish occupation zone would take a similiar course as the DFNS (declare a state name, claim they are officially distinct from the rest of Syria) I would support renaming the article. After all, many quasi-states which are still occupied have their own names, see for example the Republic of Artsakh. However, this is not yet the case for the Turkish occupation zone. It is de facto a distinct polity, but claims to be just another part of Syria. So no "double standards" are not involved. Applodion (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- The so-called Democratic Federation of Northern Syria never claimed to be an independent entity but rather an autonomous region, you mentioned that the difference is that the Syrian Interim government "claims to rule all of Syria", this is a bad reason because DFNS also claims many areas that they don't control such as Afrin or never controlled such as al-Bab and Jarablous, turkey never mentioned that they intend to annex Northern Syria, in fact they just finished building a border wall! Also Turkey has a presence in Idlib and large parts of Idlib are controlled by Turkish-backed forces. TO be clear I think that we should keep the article Democratic Federation of Northern Syria as it's but this article should be changed to avoid double standards. 3bdulelah (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is not about indepedence, it is about whether the area fully governs itself; this region does not, it is under Turkish control. Territorial claims have nothing to do with this; the DFNS does not claim to be Syria's official government, the Interim Government does. Furthermore, the occupation zone is not the same as the Syrian Interim Government, because the area is governed by the Interim Government, Turkey, and local councils which are related to both. Just because Turkey has not "officially" annexed the area does not mean that it is not de facto ruled by Turkey. Idlib is not occupied by Turkey, so it is not related to this in any way. Applodion (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- The so-called Democratic Federation of Northern Syria never claimed to be an independent entity but rather an autonomous region, you mentioned that the difference is that the Syrian Interim government "claims to rule all of Syria", this is a bad reason because DFNS also claims many areas that they don't control such as Afrin or never controlled such as al-Bab and Jarablous, turkey never mentioned that they intend to annex Northern Syria, in fact they just finished building a border wall! Also Turkey has a presence in Idlib and large parts of Idlib are controlled by Turkish-backed forces. TO be clear I think that we should keep the article Democratic Federation of Northern Syria as it's but this article should be changed to avoid double standards. 3bdulelah (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Undiscussed move
@Jim7049: As I noted earlier while reverting your move of this page, this zone is generally called the "Turkish occupation" by reliable media and researchers (see for example VOA, The Independent, Carnegie), whereas your name is made up. The TFSA is a Turkish proxy force, so it is wrong it treat it as defining group in this area, especially as you thereby ignore the Turkish military administration, Syrian Interim Government, and native local councils who actually govern the occupation zone. At its worst, the TFSA hinders the local administration more than it serves it. Applodion (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't require a discussion. I don't care the differences between media outlets. An occupation by definition would require Turkish armed forces alone, and the title suggests that it is. Meanwhile TAF are minorly present among the TFSA troops. There is no Turkish occupation as Turks are not the sole troops there. I'm not gonna waste other moderators time discussing something so simple so realize the fact and change the misleading title. Jim7049 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: No offense, but your point here is original research. We don't create articles by writing what we personally consider logical and correct; no, we take sources and write articles based on the informations they give us (whether we like it or not). You cannot make up a term, say another title (used by sources) in incorrect, and call it a day. Furthermore, your analysis is wrong. Simply put, the TFSA does not run this region. Turkey and its civilian allies do. The TFSA is, for the most part, its de facto security force and part-time mafia (unless we talk about some of the better TFSA units which are usually very close to the Turkish military). The TFSA is itself under Turkish command. It follows (for the most part) Turkish orders. Applodion (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have made this argument here with almost 10 users all of which disagreed with you, I'm not gonna waste any time and listen to you repeat the same thing. I'm starting and RfC. Jim7049 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Again, no offense, but you do realize that you basically accuse me of bias here, even though I added much of the information you use to justify your OR position (such as that this area is factually a proto-state which does not exclude it being an occupation zone)? Furthermore, I did not "made this argument here with almost 10 users all of which disagreed with you" - there were previous discussions about similiar issues, and these involved other editors like SILENTRESIDENT and Editor abcdef, taking similiar stances as I did. The other editors also did not share your position, as they were calling for the article's deletion or a (from their POV) more neutral article or a rename to "Free Syrian Army offensive in North Syria", and so on. No one so far wanted it being renamed to "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone". Anyway, it is not my fault that I have to repeat myself, as the same issues come up from time to time, but so far, people simply stopped taking part in the discussion at some point. A civil, peaceful discussion of this move is needed, and the right decision. Applodion (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. There is no Turkish occupation like in the case of other separative republics that house Russian or Turkish troops. See, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Luhanks People's Republic, Donetsk People's Republic, Northern Cyprus and many more. None of theses are Russian or Turkish Occupations just like Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone. All have heads of state, independent armed forces and the rest. Therefore whatever your biased sources say are meaningless. Your source could say there is a banana republic run by monkeys, I'm not gonna allow it to be called that just because the stupid source says. Jim7049 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please, chill. I am not your enemy, I just want the article's name to stick to (a) the truth, and (b) Wikipedia's rules. My "stupid sources" are reliable newspapers and researchers, so they are not really stupid at all - again, we have to follow the sources. If you were to find reliable sources that give us a better title, then I would fully support a rename. I don't love the title "Turkish occupation". Yet so far you have presented no sources, and therefor I cannot accept the rename as it is. Applodion (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. There is no Turkish occupation like in the case of other separative republics that house Russian or Turkish troops. See, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Luhanks People's Republic, Donetsk People's Republic, Northern Cyprus and many more. None of theses are Russian or Turkish Occupations just like Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone. All have heads of state, independent armed forces and the rest. Therefore whatever your biased sources say are meaningless. Your source could say there is a banana republic run by monkeys, I'm not gonna allow it to be called that just because the stupid source says. Jim7049 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Again, no offense, but you do realize that you basically accuse me of bias here, even though I added much of the information you use to justify your OR position (such as that this area is factually a proto-state which does not exclude it being an occupation zone)? Furthermore, I did not "made this argument here with almost 10 users all of which disagreed with you" - there were previous discussions about similiar issues, and these involved other editors like SILENTRESIDENT and Editor abcdef, taking similiar stances as I did. The other editors also did not share your position, as they were calling for the article's deletion or a (from their POV) more neutral article or a rename to "Free Syrian Army offensive in North Syria", and so on. No one so far wanted it being renamed to "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone". Anyway, it is not my fault that I have to repeat myself, as the same issues come up from time to time, but so far, people simply stopped taking part in the discussion at some point. A civil, peaceful discussion of this move is needed, and the right decision. Applodion (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have made this argument here with almost 10 users all of which disagreed with you, I'm not gonna waste any time and listen to you repeat the same thing. I'm starting and RfC. Jim7049 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: No offense, but your point here is original research. We don't create articles by writing what we personally consider logical and correct; no, we take sources and write articles based on the informations they give us (whether we like it or not). You cannot make up a term, say another title (used by sources) in incorrect, and call it a day. Furthermore, your analysis is wrong. Simply put, the TFSA does not run this region. Turkey and its civilian allies do. The TFSA is, for the most part, its de facto security force and part-time mafia (unless we talk about some of the better TFSA units which are usually very close to the Turkish military). The TFSA is itself under Turkish command. It follows (for the most part) Turkish orders. Applodion (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't require a discussion. I don't care the differences between media outlets. An occupation by definition would require Turkish armed forces alone, and the title suggests that it is. Meanwhile TAF are minorly present among the TFSA troops. There is no Turkish occupation as Turks are not the sole troops there. I'm not gonna waste other moderators time discussing something so simple so realize the fact and change the misleading title. Jim7049 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: based on a request today at WP:RMT to revert undiscussed page move, the article has been restored to its original location. Please do not make moves, while the RfC or RM discussion is ongoing. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC, article name
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Applodion insists that the region know as "Northern Syrian Security belt" is a Turkish occupation zone. While in the article it is mentioned as proto state with a standing army know as TFSA (Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army), as well as President and Prime minister. This region is not a Turkish occupation zone as the Turkish army is merely present among the unrecognized proto state. Similar in the case of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Donetsk People's Republic. All of which are small proto states under the guidance of a bigger power rather than an occupation. Similarly in the case of Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone. Jim7049 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note this, all these proto-states Jim7049 just listed, are (per international law) occupation zones - Nevertheless, they are also quasi-states at the same time. A occupation does not exclude that native civilian authorities operate or even that a proto-state (or a state in general) exists. This is not about the this region in northern Syria being an occupation zone or not (which it is), but about the article's name which has to follow existing rules. I am not completely happy with the old title "Turkish occupation of northern Syria", as i too feel that it does not convey the area's complexities. Regardless, we cannot simply invent a new title - we have to take what the sources present us with. "Northern Syrian Security belt" is a name used by Turkish sources, yet it too is (1) POV, and (2) not much better, as "security belt" does not suggest that the region is a proto-state or someting similiar any better than the old "Turkish occupation" title did. If anyone has a good alternative name for the region, based on sources, I am willing to support a rename.
As it stands, however, I have to oppose any move, as "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" is neither grounded in fa´cts nor given in sources, while "Northern Syrian Security belt" is no improvement and also POV. Currently, I thus call for the title to remain "Turkish occupation of northern Syria". Applodion (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)- @Jim7049: Could you please self-revert your move of the page? When a discussion about a move is taking place, the old title remains until the discussion is finished. Also, the source you added does not support your position. Applodion (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: So the source says, "Not TFSA alone. The Turkish army AND the TFSA" then why should the title be called "Turkish Occupation"? The title "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" implies that there are both TFSA and Turkish soldiers backing them there. Why should anyone get confused by your Turkish Occupation title? I'm not reverting back to the illogical biased title. Jim7049 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Again: We have to use titles that sources use. Your title for this article is your invention. "Turkish occupation", though imperfect, is widely used. Furthermore, "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" ignores the Turkish military administration, civilian local councils and thus has just as many flaws as title as "Turkish occupation". Applodion (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: Yes you have said that a hundred times. How reliable and unbiased your sources are is doubtful. Therefore not displaying the facts but rather opinions. I'm not gonna allow a region with thousands of people living in to be named after some journalists opinion. If you want go ahead and revert again, you will be breaking the 3RR soon. Jim7049 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Do you imply that Voice of America and Carnegie are untrustworthy? Per Wikipedia's standards at least they are not. Again no offense, but by moving the article without discussion, you are the one who is breaking this site's rules. Anyway, I find it saddening that you do not appear to move from your position, and ignore the problems which I have found in regard to your move proposal. You don't have to be aggressive about this issue just because I disagree with you. Can you not think of a better sourced alternative than "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" which is a made-up term? Simply put, per Wikipedia:No original research, you cannot state "I'm not gonna allow a region with thousands of people living in to be named after some journalists opinion" because we are obliged to use sources as basis of the articles. For the rename to be possible, you have to find a source which uses this term. I am sure that we can find a workable solution for this issue. Applodion (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: No, you can talk for years if you want. My point stands. I will wait for the RfC and I'm not reverting back to the misleading title. Jim7049 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Ok. I would have liked for us and other editors to work out some kind of solution, but if you don't want to change your position in any way... Applodion (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: Then work out a solution rather than trying to change it back to the old name. Jim7049 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: I am not arguing for the revert because I insist on keeping "Turkish occupation" as title, but because it is Wikipedia's policy to revert to the status quo during ongoing discussions. And in regard to the title itself, again: My problem is not with a move of the page in itself - my problem is that your proposal "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" has absolutely no source whatsoever. You want the move, so you could at least present a sourced alternative, something like "Northern Syrian Security Belt", a name used by pro-Turkish sources. Then we could think about the pros and cons of a move, and find a solution. As long as you regard only your own personal view as acceptable for the move, however, it is hardly possible to find a compromise. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: I did present a source, you seem to have reverted it because you find it is not good enough. Th area is controlled by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army which is what all the sources say. Putting a zone in the end is not original research. You know this though you keep insisting to revert back to the old name without compromise or reason. So there is no way getting anywhere with you. Jim7049 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- That source was not just not good enough; it did simply not mention the term "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" at all, and was concerned only with the conquest of the Afrin area while explicitly stating that the "Turkish army and Syrian rebels backed by Ankara took control of the Syrian town of Afrin on Sunday". Not just the TFSA. The Turkish army and the TFSA. The sources do not state that the area is run by the TFSA because it is not. It is run by the Turkish military, and native civilian authorities. The TFSA has no official role in its administration, though some groups are represented on councils or run some places more or less illegally. Furthermore, I just said that I would be willing to talk about a sourced, alternative title other than "Turkish occupation" - It just has to be sourced. Applodion (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: It doesn't have to mention Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone, mentioning it is controlled by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army is good enough adding a pronoun next to it doesn't make it an original research, yet you keep insisting on something so simple shows that you care more about your bias and opinions rather than the facts. You simply are here to make your opinion valid rather than show a fact. Hence other editors should solve this. Arguing with you is no different than arguing with a wall really. Jim7049 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- That source was not just not good enough; it did simply not mention the term "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" at all, and was concerned only with the conquest of the Afrin area while explicitly stating that the "Turkish army and Syrian rebels backed by Ankara took control of the Syrian town of Afrin on Sunday". Not just the TFSA. The Turkish army and the TFSA. The sources do not state that the area is run by the TFSA because it is not. It is run by the Turkish military, and native civilian authorities. The TFSA has no official role in its administration, though some groups are represented on councils or run some places more or less illegally. Furthermore, I just said that I would be willing to talk about a sourced, alternative title other than "Turkish occupation" - It just has to be sourced. Applodion (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Anyway, we should probably really wait for another editor to present his/her opinion on the matter. Currently, this discussion is not really heading anywhere. Applodion (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: I did present a source, you seem to have reverted it because you find it is not good enough. Th area is controlled by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army which is what all the sources say. Putting a zone in the end is not original research. You know this though you keep insisting to revert back to the old name without compromise or reason. So there is no way getting anywhere with you. Jim7049 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: I am not arguing for the revert because I insist on keeping "Turkish occupation" as title, but because it is Wikipedia's policy to revert to the status quo during ongoing discussions. And in regard to the title itself, again: My problem is not with a move of the page in itself - my problem is that your proposal "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" has absolutely no source whatsoever. You want the move, so you could at least present a sourced alternative, something like "Northern Syrian Security Belt", a name used by pro-Turkish sources. Then we could think about the pros and cons of a move, and find a solution. As long as you regard only your own personal view as acceptable for the move, however, it is hardly possible to find a compromise. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: Then work out a solution rather than trying to change it back to the old name. Jim7049 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Ok. I would have liked for us and other editors to work out some kind of solution, but if you don't want to change your position in any way... Applodion (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: No, you can talk for years if you want. My point stands. I will wait for the RfC and I'm not reverting back to the misleading title. Jim7049 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Do you imply that Voice of America and Carnegie are untrustworthy? Per Wikipedia's standards at least they are not. Again no offense, but by moving the article without discussion, you are the one who is breaking this site's rules. Anyway, I find it saddening that you do not appear to move from your position, and ignore the problems which I have found in regard to your move proposal. You don't have to be aggressive about this issue just because I disagree with you. Can you not think of a better sourced alternative than "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" which is a made-up term? Simply put, per Wikipedia:No original research, you cannot state "I'm not gonna allow a region with thousands of people living in to be named after some journalists opinion" because we are obliged to use sources as basis of the articles. For the rename to be possible, you have to find a source which uses this term. I am sure that we can find a workable solution for this issue. Applodion (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: Yes you have said that a hundred times. How reliable and unbiased your sources are is doubtful. Therefore not displaying the facts but rather opinions. I'm not gonna allow a region with thousands of people living in to be named after some journalists opinion. If you want go ahead and revert again, you will be breaking the 3RR soon. Jim7049 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Again: We have to use titles that sources use. Your title for this article is your invention. "Turkish occupation", though imperfect, is widely used. Furthermore, "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" ignores the Turkish military administration, civilian local councils and thus has just as many flaws as title as "Turkish occupation". Applodion (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion: So the source says, "Not TFSA alone. The Turkish army AND the TFSA" then why should the title be called "Turkish Occupation"? The title "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" implies that there are both TFSA and Turkish soldiers backing them there. Why should anyone get confused by your Turkish Occupation title? I'm not reverting back to the illogical biased title. Jim7049 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jim7049: Could you please self-revert your move of the page? When a discussion about a move is taking place, the old title remains until the discussion is finished. Also, the source you added does not support your position. Applodion (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there I have seen your discussion and I`d like to help with arguments, but would really appreciate not having to vote between the current two names. According to AP Turkey is very strongly active in the "Zone around Jarabulus and Al Bab". Turkish post offices and financial institutions have gained a major role in this Zone. Salaries are also paid in Liras. Turkish flags and language are present at governmental buildings. Turkish language classes are given in first and second grades. And in Afrin, there will be no reliable source that can cite Turks there as a welcome force. And Turkish flags and language are also very present there. Afrin was a well organized peaceful place, with no battles with neither the Rebels in Idlib nor the ones in Al-Bab. To me it is difficult to see it as a Zone run by a Syrian entity close to the Free Syrian Army. The Syrians have little to say there. How would a Syrian come to the idea by himself to put up a turkish flag on a governmental building? From my point of view it is imposed by the Turks. Then according to various sources not so well known in the western press (I cite Ahval) there are also talks about to administrate parts of the area directly from Turkey. From my point of view it is an attempt of Turkey to annex some parts of Syria. Maybe this edit of mine helps you. With the very best regards.Lean Anael (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lean Anael: Just to note, all the examples you have given about Turkish language and education do not make it an occupation zone. All the separatists republics belonging to Russia have these examples as well. Check Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and many more. All have a standing president and prime minister. An independent army separate from Turkish or Russian troops which are backing it as well as semi independent rule. The Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone is no exception to this, therefore cannot be called a Turkish Occupation zone. An occupation by definition requires the Turkish Army operating there alone, while they are the minorly present troops among the TFSA troops. It would also require a direct administration by Turkish state which is not occuring. Only Turkish institution I have noticed in this zone is the PTT (postal office, and the only institution mentioned in source you've given). Which does not make it an occupation all the same since it's present in countries like Northern Cyprus already. Also that Ahval link is an allegation. That has not taken place in reality. Jim7049 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again: Abkhazia & Co. are under Russian occupation; it is simply so that the local governments are pro-Russian and support the Russian military presence. Furthermore, the government of northwestern Syria is not independent, it is installed, backed and safeguarded by Turkey and de facto under Turkish control; an area can have native authorities and still be occupied. So this point of yours is moot. Applodion (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Then go change those article names to Russian occupation of Georgia. All the listed separative republics are backed and safeguarded by Russia or Turkey. That does not make them an occupation. I also though we'd gone through this ten times. So why are you replying to me? Wait for other users. Jim7049 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again: Abkhazia & Co. are under Russian occupation; it is simply so that the local governments are pro-Russian and support the Russian military presence. Furthermore, the government of northwestern Syria is not independent, it is installed, backed and safeguarded by Turkey and de facto under Turkish control; an area can have native authorities and still be occupied. So this point of yours is moot. Applodion (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lean Anael: Just to note, there are actually Syrians who are extremely pro-Turkish and use the Turkish flag out of their own free will, mostly Turkmens who live in northern Syria (see for example the Muntasir Billah Brigade which proudly displays the Turkish flag alongside their own flag). Still, you are right about the other points. Applodion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion thank you for your info about the Turkmens. @Jim7049 I think we can make a difference between if the majority of the population wants a foreign force present or not. And there actually exists an article Occupied territories of Georgia. Then Occupied Cyprus leads to Northern Cyprus even though there today, after the eviction of the greeks, the majority is pleased with the Turkish presence. I think it is viewed differently from region to region. From my point of view at least Afrin is occupied by Turkish forces. There the very vast majority of the population that was living there before, has really not invited them. They fled and Turkey then called Islamists from Ghouta etc. to live there, to have people and achieve an demographic change. Without Turkey this demographic change would not have been possible and not much population would have been left comparing to before the presence of Turkish troops. In Al-Bab, well knowing Turkish politics a little and their approach to opposition...(this should not mean Assad is any better, though). And yes, the Turkish army is not the only actor there, but I read quite a lot of the soldiers from the Free Syrian Army receive their salary directly from Turkey and seen like this (again from my point of view) Turkey is the major force in the referred area. And something more to think about: If a minority of a population in a territory like in Afrin, is able to say it is not an occupation, very few territories will be able to called an occupied territory. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lean Anael: Writing an article mentioning the status of occupied Georgia is one thing, devoting the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian Occupation is another. We have a single article in this region and it cannot be dubbed Turkish Occupation since there are Prime Minister's and Presidents as well as an independent army. Also I checked your profile and noticed Kurdish articles is your main topic. Even said in your own profile. So I doubt you could take an unbiased stance to this articles naming. I suggest you read the discussion between me and Applodion written before this to read some of the points mentioned regarding the zones independence from Turkey. Jim7049 (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Applodion thank you for your info about the Turkmens. @Jim7049 I think we can make a difference between if the majority of the population wants a foreign force present or not. And there actually exists an article Occupied territories of Georgia. Then Occupied Cyprus leads to Northern Cyprus even though there today, after the eviction of the greeks, the majority is pleased with the Turkish presence. I think it is viewed differently from region to region. From my point of view at least Afrin is occupied by Turkish forces. There the very vast majority of the population that was living there before, has really not invited them. They fled and Turkey then called Islamists from Ghouta etc. to live there, to have people and achieve an demographic change. Without Turkey this demographic change would not have been possible and not much population would have been left comparing to before the presence of Turkish troops. In Al-Bab, well knowing Turkish politics a little and their approach to opposition...(this should not mean Assad is any better, though). And yes, the Turkish army is not the only actor there, but I read quite a lot of the soldiers from the Free Syrian Army receive their salary directly from Turkey and seen like this (again from my point of view) Turkey is the major force in the referred area. And something more to think about: If a minority of a population in a territory like in Afrin, is able to say it is not an occupation, very few territories will be able to called an occupied territory. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lean Anael: Just to note, all the examples you have given about Turkish language and education do not make it an occupation zone. All the separatists republics belonging to Russia have these examples as well. Check Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and many more. All have a standing president and prime minister. An independent army separate from Turkish or Russian troops which are backing it as well as semi independent rule. The Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone is no exception to this, therefore cannot be called a Turkish Occupation zone. An occupation by definition requires the Turkish Army operating there alone, while they are the minorly present troops among the TFSA troops. It would also require a direct administration by Turkish state which is not occuring. Only Turkish institution I have noticed in this zone is the PTT (postal office, and the only institution mentioned in source you've given). Which does not make it an occupation all the same since it's present in countries like Northern Cyprus already. Also that Ahval link is an allegation. That has not taken place in reality. Jim7049 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there I have seen your discussion and I`d like to help with arguments, but would really appreciate not having to vote between the current two names. According to AP Turkey is very strongly active in the "Zone around Jarabulus and Al Bab". Turkish post offices and financial institutions have gained a major role in this Zone. Salaries are also paid in Liras. Turkish flags and language are present at governmental buildings. Turkish language classes are given in first and second grades. And in Afrin, there will be no reliable source that can cite Turks there as a welcome force. And Turkish flags and language are also very present there. Afrin was a well organized peaceful place, with no battles with neither the Rebels in Idlib nor the ones in Al-Bab. To me it is difficult to see it as a Zone run by a Syrian entity close to the Free Syrian Army. The Syrians have little to say there. How would a Syrian come to the idea by himself to put up a turkish flag on a governmental building? From my point of view it is imposed by the Turks. Then according to various sources not so well known in the western press (I cite Ahval) there are also talks about to administrate parts of the area directly from Turkey. From my point of view it is an attempt of Turkey to annex some parts of Syria. Maybe this edit of mine helps you. With the very best regards.Lean Anael (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes I mainly write in Kurdish articles, this is how I found your discussion. And I try to write fair in order that both sides are represented. As I wrote from the beginning, I would prefer not having to vote here. I have now read your discussions above and also the History of the article. The article was called Turkish occupation either of North Syria or Northern Syria for most of the time, and any time someone wanted to change it, it was reverted rather quickly again to Turkish occupation of either North or Northern Syria. Then Jim7049 moved it as the first edit in the article and without raising the subject on the talk page. I guess this is a hard entrance to an article. And I think this was not correct, since on the talk page it was pointed out, that there should be no more moves before there has been a discussion. Then you made rather harsh changes to the text, which Applodion reverted and Jim7049 re-reverted. Coming from far away to change the meaning of an article this drastically without raising the subject on the talk page and persisting in the changes after a editor (which has been contributing to the article in multiple edits since January 2018), raised opposition, is from my point of view not correct. You can find a solution together, which now you are trying to do, good. But founding a move of the article to an other name with a DW article I is not correct, too. You know there are better sources here and here to name here only two, that say otherwise. Then about that there exists just a single article of this region: There are Articles about Afrin Region, Afrin Canton and numerous articles about Jarabulus and the other cities where turkish troops and flags on Governmental buildings are present. And about that it is only a occupation if there are only foreign occupational troops alone and their allied troops which are paid by the foreign troops do not count... I think this is a hard stance to defend with only your words and no source. Also calling the FSA an independent! army! (they are rather a collection of militias) is difficult to source. My advice is that Jim writes an own article to this Zone he wants to have an article about or waits for someone who supports his move with reasonable arguments. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lets start with the two sources you've given. Those two, especially Foreign Policy is an anti Turkish think thank and is biased in every singe article it writes about Turkey. (Or Russia and Trump). It's hard to call an independent source since it's basically become an opinion piece. I could use sources like daily sabah or daily hurriyet in the contrary that would describe northern Syria as a democratic haven. Though that would be biased, so I suggest you don't use these either. (Or sources like Rudaw). The flags present in the zone do not give it an occupation status. People in Idlib province wave Turkish flags all the time which is not under Turkish Control. Even before the Northern Region was under TFSA control people were using Turkish flags in protests. So the flag thing doesn't make it an occupation. Also for the naming of the article, the official name called by Turkey and Rebels is, "Northern Syrian Security Belt". I though the name would be some what biased according to some, even though it's the official name. So I came up with "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" which is a neutral name and describes the control of the region perfectly. Rather than the ultra biased "Turkish Occupation of Northern Syria" name, which gives no mention what so ever to the autonomy of the region, and the TFSA there. If there was a direct occupation with Turkish troops alone, and a occupation status run directly under Turkey. That would be an occupation, which is not. Jim7049 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Foreign Policy is not anti-Turkish; why would you even think that? Just because they reported negative stuff about Turkey? They have done the same for the DFNS, Assad and the Syrian opposition. Applodion (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are articles posted almost everyday criticizing Turkey on it, and not just Turkey but Russia and Trump as well. It is one of the most biased news outlets out there. It has also become a political left wing think tank rather than a neutral journal. I challenge you to find one single positive article about Turkey written on their site. Foreign Policy is anti-Turkish, anti-Russian as well as anti-Trump opinion piece. Jim7049 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I have searched for five minutes and found this article which is (at least in my opinion) more fair than many other newspapers about the AKP, and this article which argues for Turkey's worth as US ally. Regardless, no think tank / newspaper is obliged to also cover positive aspects for every topic it has written negatively about. When writing more "negative" articles about Turkey than "positive" ones makes a think tank / newspaper / academia anti-Turkish, then most publications in Europe would probably have to be considered anti-Turkish simply due to the constant quarrels between Turkey and the EU in the last few years. Applodion (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aha see, you have just proven my point. This article is written in 2010, almost 9 years ago. Before the turning of US-Turkey relations. The articles took a sharp decline since 2010, and a major decline in 2016 after the coup attempt. I don't think they wrote a positive article about Turkey that is not older than a decade. Definitely none since 2016, and none about Russia since 2014. Jim7049 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Mmmh... that might be correct, but for that one would have to dig deeper than what I just did. Anyway, Foreign Policy is not the main point of this discussion, so we should probably leave this topic aside for the moment. Applodion (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, "Northern Syrian Security Belt" would still be a better name than "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" because it at least has sources backing it up. Applodion (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I could change it to this if other users agree. Jim7049 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, good. As I said above, I find "Northern Syrian Security Belt" problematic due to it being somewhat POV, but I could live with it as it has sources backing it up. Nevertheless, we should still wait for other editors to give their opinions as well. Applodion (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim7049 Do you think DW (Germany is I guess the only other country than Turkey, where to show a YPG flag is forbidden) is a better source to define an occupation status of Afrin than Foreign Policy and Thomas Schmiedinger? I agree with Applodion that Foreign Policy is not anti-Turkish. And there are also others who see it as an occupation like Carnegie Amnesty (rather pro Turkish, it took them almost 40 days to report on the Afrin offensive but if a pro Turkish militia is threatened with an attacked they campaign against the attack) Me too I would be interested to see what unbiased source gives the name Northern Syrian Security Belt to the region there. FYI: The article was named Northern Syrian Security Belt before and it got reverted. Greetings, Lean Anael (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Lean Anael: I'm not gonna get into an argument of which source is better etc. The point being is there are both sides calling opposing names, from Turkish occupation to Safe zone. Turkish Occupation by definition requires Turkish Military presence alone, while the TFSA is about %10 Turkish troops. Also the whole administration by TFSA isn't mentioned. I'm sure Amnesty and other sources call it an occupation yet that is what they call Donetsk People's Republic and Abhazia as well. Since none of these are called Russian Occupations, (Or Northern Cyprus is called Turkish Occupation since it became independent.) this article needs to be called by it's official name as well. Which is Northern Syrian Security belt. Jim7049 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok I looked a little on wikipedia what means (military) occupation, and I read that according to art 42. to the 1907 Den Hague Convention it is called occupied when a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army. It does not matter if foreign troops are 10% or 50% according to this convention. One should also have in mind the Airpower of the Turkish Army. But most important is if hostile or friendly. It is old, (other treaty was not shown after short reading of Military Occupation, though) maybe Jim has something newer that shows otherwise?
- @Lean Anael: I'm not gonna get into an argument of which source is better etc. The point being is there are both sides calling opposing names, from Turkish occupation to Safe zone. Turkish Occupation by definition requires Turkish Military presence alone, while the TFSA is about %10 Turkish troops. Also the whole administration by TFSA isn't mentioned. I'm sure Amnesty and other sources call it an occupation yet that is what they call Donetsk People's Republic and Abhazia as well. Since none of these are called Russian Occupations, (Or Northern Cyprus is called Turkish Occupation since it became independent.) this article needs to be called by it's official name as well. Which is Northern Syrian Security belt. Jim7049 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim7049 Do you think DW (Germany is I guess the only other country than Turkey, where to show a YPG flag is forbidden) is a better source to define an occupation status of Afrin than Foreign Policy and Thomas Schmiedinger? I agree with Applodion that Foreign Policy is not anti-Turkish. And there are also others who see it as an occupation like Carnegie Amnesty (rather pro Turkish, it took them almost 40 days to report on the Afrin offensive but if a pro Turkish militia is threatened with an attacked they campaign against the attack) Me too I would be interested to see what unbiased source gives the name Northern Syrian Security Belt to the region there. FYI: The article was named Northern Syrian Security Belt before and it got reverted. Greetings, Lean Anael (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, good. As I said above, I find "Northern Syrian Security Belt" problematic due to it being somewhat POV, but I could live with it as it has sources backing it up. Nevertheless, we should still wait for other editors to give their opinions as well. Applodion (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I could change it to this if other users agree. Jim7049 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aha see, you have just proven my point. This article is written in 2010, almost 9 years ago. Before the turning of US-Turkey relations. The articles took a sharp decline since 2010, and a major decline in 2016 after the coup attempt. I don't think they wrote a positive article about Turkey that is not older than a decade. Definitely none since 2016, and none about Russia since 2014. Jim7049 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I have searched for five minutes and found this article which is (at least in my opinion) more fair than many other newspapers about the AKP, and this article which argues for Turkey's worth as US ally. Regardless, no think tank / newspaper is obliged to also cover positive aspects for every topic it has written negatively about. When writing more "negative" articles about Turkey than "positive" ones makes a think tank / newspaper / academia anti-Turkish, then most publications in Europe would probably have to be considered anti-Turkish simply due to the constant quarrels between Turkey and the EU in the last few years. Applodion (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are articles posted almost everyday criticizing Turkey on it, and not just Turkey but Russia and Trump as well. It is one of the most biased news outlets out there. It has also become a political left wing think tank rather than a neutral journal. I challenge you to find one single positive article about Turkey written on their site. Foreign Policy is anti-Turkish, anti-Russian as well as anti-Trump opinion piece. Jim7049 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Foreign Policy is not anti-Turkish; why would you even think that? Just because they reported negative stuff about Turkey? They have done the same for the DFNS, Assad and the Syrian opposition. Applodion (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Lean Anael (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, this treaty may call this an occupation, what we are doing in Wikipedia in regard to other articles have been independent naming of the so called provinces or occupations. In regards to Abkhazia, Donetsk People's Republic, Northern Cyprus etc. If this was to change according to the article then so should the entire policy of Wikipedia. The rather shorter route would be to change this article like the rest of them, not make an exception and not start renaming the entire breakaway semi independent regions. Jim7049 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Another parallel which actually is very similar - the case of Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, which was a local Lebanese breakaway territory administered by the South Lebanon security belt administration and South Lebanon Army on the course of the Lebanese Civil War (originally named Free Lebanon State and Free Lebanon Army).GreyShark (dibra) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, this treaty may call this an occupation, what we are doing in Wikipedia in regard to other articles have been independent naming of the so called provinces or occupations. In regards to Abkhazia, Donetsk People's Republic, Northern Cyprus etc. If this was to change according to the article then so should the entire policy of Wikipedia. The rather shorter route would be to change this article like the rest of them, not make an exception and not start renaming the entire breakaway semi independent regions. Jim7049 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - this case is also exactly parallel to the South Lebanon security belt, which was carved out of Lebanon with Israeli support (originally aimed to create the Christian-majority Free Lebanon State proto-state). I would like to ask participants of discussion from that page, who voted to rename it to Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, to comment here @Peacemaker67, RGloucester, Number 57, Michiganman89, and GregKaye:GreyShark (dibra) 07:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - arguing about the definition of occupation is pointless, as we need to go by the common name used by reliable sources. Can anyone point to major news organiztions (AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Guardian, LAT, NYT, Reuters, USA Today, WaPo, WSJ, etc) that use the word "occupation"? If all you have to go on is Foreign Policy, which represents itself a providing "alternative views" that are "not scholarly" (according to its Wikipedia article), and Amnesty International, which is not a news source but an advocacy organization, that's a pretty weak argument. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I've seen on maps posted in WSJ and NYT they write it as "Turkish-backed Rebel zone". "Turkish-occupation" is only used by sources presenting opinion like you've said, such a Foreign Policy. Although even NYT and WSJ are not independent, pretty much nothing is but they are definitely better than what's used in this article. Reuters and AP are the sources reporting directly on the ground without any editorialization, so they'd be good. They call the troops, Turkish-backed Rebels. Jim7049 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Carnegie, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, The Region, the Syrian government, Egypt Today, and Syria Direct refer to the entire area as "Turkish occupation", "Turkey's occupation", or "Turkish-occupied", while Reuters, CNN, al-Monitor and Haaretz at least call its presence in Afrin an occupation. Google has tens of thousands of results (though much if not most of them by anti-Turkish sources) for "Turkish occupation" or "Turkey's occupation" together with "Syria", while "Northern Syria Security Belt" gives 3,070 results, "Turkish-backed Rebel zone" 473, and "Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army zone" 116. As said above, I am not opposed to a change per se. "Turkish occupation" is probably the most common name, but if we change it out of concerns of it being too POV, "Northern Syria Security Belt" is currently probably the best choice. Applodion (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC, change name from Turkish Occupation zone to Northern Syrian Security Belt
The consensus is against changing the name to Northern Syrian Security Belt.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous RfC got closed without enough contributions. Even Donald Trump is calling it a Safe Zone now, and in majority of the citations in the article it is described by its official name, Northern Syrian Security Belt. Request for comments to change article name. Keep in mind that the majority of the forces present are the Free Syrian Army (%90) rather than Turkish Armed Forces (%10) as well. Jim7049 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Please Jim argue sourced. You begin a RfC with the argument that Trump calls it a safe zone and give us a tweet about a planned (not established) Safe Zone in an other area than the one this article is about, as source. Then you delete your edit. Why?Do you not want to give aource, or is the source bad? And you do not bring a single serious (also no POV) source that gives your proposed name in an article. We were all over this before. Since then now there has opened an Imam Hatip School (An official Turkish school) in Afrin and there it is taught in turkish language. Besides more than 200 schools are run by Turkish institutions. The Turkish Diyanet appoints the Muftis in Afrin... Why don`t show the Syrian flag (or at least the one of the Syrian opposition parties like in Rojava) in school if it is Syria. Why not let Syrians run the schools, why not let Syrians appoint their muftis. Just please argue sourced. Thank you.Lean Anael (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- The infobox of the article states both the Syrian Opposition and Turkish flag are commonly used in the areas, if this was an occupation like the title suggests there wouldn't be any flags used for representation of the rest of Syria, which is the opposition flag and the Turkish recognized government of Syria. As for Trump's tweet it is obvious he is referring to the extension of the current Safe Zone by expanding east of Euphrates. Jim7049 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: "Northern Syrian Security Belt" is a euphemism and POV. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose could you please argue sourced Jim7049? Who wrote that Trump said it is a safe zone? And Northern Syrian Security Belt doesn`t have one single hit in my Google search. 23:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Lean Anael (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Though I am willing to accept a rename, and think "Northern Syrian Security Belt" to be the best alternative, I also stand by my opinion that "Turkish occupation" is the most common name for this area, and also factually correct (by now it is even confirmed that Turkish civil officials have been appointed to oversee northern Syria - that is bordering on de facto annexation, not to mention remarks by Turkish ministers about northern Syria being part of the Turkish homeland). Applodion (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: The region is not an occupation since only %10 of the troops there are Turkish. The official name of the region is not what the article says as well. Strong bias by other editors have been observed who are mostly in it for their personal views. Wikipedian Kurds and Foreigners from Germany with anti-Turkish views are disturbing Wikipedia and since they have majority article has to stay in its biased form. A sad day for academics. Jim7049 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: This is not an occupation, zone. At least the title should be changed. Are we calling Crimean administration as "Russian occupation of Crimea"? No. It's a security belt, at least claimed by Turkey. Turkey doesn't claim these areas as its own territory, unlike Russia does in Crimea. Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: During the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, there were at any given time more SLA than IDF soldiers in the occupied area. Despite this, that article was moved from "South Lebanon security belt" for reasons that are evidently also applicable here. While it may have been a security zone to the Israelis, for the Lebanese it was an occupation. I'm not foreign to the idea of renaming this article, but "Northern Syrian Security Belt" is POV. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Applodion. No evidence that the proposed name is commonly found in reliable secondary sources, and I'm not convinced that an exception to WP:OFFICIAL is warranted here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nominator states incorrectly that it is occupied by the Free Syrian Army when really it is occupied by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army. This confusion is why we have a hatnote
{{Distinguish|Free Syrian Army}}at the top of the article. Also, for the removal of doubt, this is the first sentence of the article during this moment in time:The Turkish Armed Forces and their proxy forces have occupied areas of northern Syria since August 2016, during the Syrian Civil War.
(citations omitted). This change would only make sense if these facts were not taken into account. Thank you. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 13:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)- Comment: The first sentence that,
The Turkish Armed Forces and their proxy forces have occupied areas of northern Syria since August 2016, during the Syrian Civil War.
is incorrect. The Free Syrian Army was in control of parts of the region including the towns of Azaz and Marea before Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army joined them. The region did not become a Turkish Occupation and there is no mention to TFSA in the title at all, hence it is biased, misleading, incorrect. Jim7049 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)- The Azaz-Mare enclave was Turkish-supported from the war's beginning, and after it became besieged by ISIL to the east and YPG/YPJ to the west, this support turned into dependence. Anyway, the FSA units which were active in this area have been fully integrated into the TFSA by now (at least as much as that is possible), and follow Turkish commands. Furthermore, the fact that Turkish civil officials operate in the entire occupation zone, Turkish ministries open schools, post offices and other services there, and the FSA units in the TFSA no longer fight Assad (which is the FSA's main goal) shows that the area is no longer FSA-run. It is under Turkish control. Turkey allows local autonomy, yes, but that does not dimish the fact that one cannot consider this anything else but an occupation. For some, that occupation barely felt or even positive - I think (and news reports confirm this) that many civilians in Azaz and Mare are happy about the Turkish influence, as it restores civil society and reduces FSA warlordism. Nevertheless, even a benevolent and popular occupation is an occupation - For example, the populations of Abkhazia and Artsakh overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russian and Armenian militaries to protect their self-declared states. Regardless, both areas are considered occupied per international law. Applodion (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The title still lacks credit to the Free Syrian Army. Or the Turkish Free Syria Army. These people have shed their blood 4, 5 times more than the Turkish soldiers, where is their credit? The title should add a mention to them. Jim7049 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- That is your opinion, but we have to follow reliable sources. Is that fair to the people on the ground? Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. That is not for Wikipedia to decide. Instead, we have to follow the sources, and few reliable sources call this area "security belt" or "FSA zone", while many call it an occupation. Thus we have to name it accordingly. Applodion (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The title still lacks credit to the Free Syrian Army. Or the Turkish Free Syria Army. These people have shed their blood 4, 5 times more than the Turkish soldiers, where is their credit? The title should add a mention to them. Jim7049 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Azaz-Mare enclave was Turkish-supported from the war's beginning, and after it became besieged by ISIL to the east and YPG/YPJ to the west, this support turned into dependence. Anyway, the FSA units which were active in this area have been fully integrated into the TFSA by now (at least as much as that is possible), and follow Turkish commands. Furthermore, the fact that Turkish civil officials operate in the entire occupation zone, Turkish ministries open schools, post offices and other services there, and the FSA units in the TFSA no longer fight Assad (which is the FSA's main goal) shows that the area is no longer FSA-run. It is under Turkish control. Turkey allows local autonomy, yes, but that does not dimish the fact that one cannot consider this anything else but an occupation. For some, that occupation barely felt or even positive - I think (and news reports confirm this) that many civilians in Azaz and Mare are happy about the Turkish influence, as it restores civil society and reduces FSA warlordism. Nevertheless, even a benevolent and popular occupation is an occupation - For example, the populations of Abkhazia and Artsakh overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russian and Armenian militaries to protect their self-declared states. Regardless, both areas are considered occupied per international law. Applodion (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The first sentence that,
- Oppose. Security Belt is not a recognized term in international law, international relations, or security studies. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3rd Incursion.
It is very early however Turkey has started an invasion of Syria and it seems blood-shed is being renewed put a new section on the 3rd incursion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Rename from "northern" to "north-western"?
Would it be a good idea to change "northern" to "north-western" in the title, to avoid confusion with the ongoing offensive in north-eastern Syria? Jzandin (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- This article is about the occupied territory, not any operation. If Turkey takes control of lands in the northeast, these would also fall under the scope of this article. As result, "northern" is better. Applodion (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It is NOT an occupation!
Böri (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest to rename the article as "Free Syrian Army offensive in North Syria" .
- Change the name then. This is Anti-Turkism Böri (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Already done Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Böri (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- This has been reverted. Please refrain from renaming this article anything else other than occupation without seeking a consensus first with the other editors. It is an indisputable fact that Turkey illegally entered and occupied Syrian territory without UN approval or permission from the Syrian government. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Böri and Nedim Ardoğa. So there are already three users supporting a rename. The title is biased and not neutral. It should be named Northern Syria Security Belt, simply what it is. The primary aim of the Turkish presence is the building of a safe zone, in order to create a safe heaven for civilians. There will be no long-term military occupation or whatsoever. Besides the act is supported by local groups such as the Turkmens and Arabs, as stated in the article. In the passage "European support" you can read that it's an acknowledged act with a mainly humanitarian motivation.
- This has been reverted. Please refrain from renaming this article anything else other than occupation without seeking a consensus first with the other editors. It is an indisputable fact that Turkey illegally entered and occupied Syrian territory without UN approval or permission from the Syrian government. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Böri (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Btw. the following sentence is quite dubious and POV: "Although Turkey was willing to support more radical Islamist branches of the Syrian opposition forces in the region after ISIL was eliminated, the US expressed reluctance to support such elements."
- This link is placed as a source, although it has nothing to do with the content in that sentence!? I think it should be removed. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It should also be noted that most sources are talking of a Turkish intervention, and not an occupation, which relies on two individual opinions in the intro text. Akocsg (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Assad Regime is illegitimate,and has no say in what happens in Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- The aim of an occupation is to gain land. Turkey did not gain land. Just to contarary, it lost its only legal piece of land (Tomb of Suleyman Shah) in Syria. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest to rename the article as "Turkish presence in Northern Syria". Turkey has not committed an occupation, it set up a safe zone with the encouragement of support of the US and Europe. Occupation has a negative connotation that implies Turkey forcefully took land from an acting government which it did not, since it took land from ISIS and SDF which aren't recognized governments. Also, what is an occupation to one is a liberation to another so it would be biased to use any of these words. I want to report the admin who locked the title, this is against wikipedia's principles of neutrality and fairness. Jammooly (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please first start a new RfC (see bottom of this talk page as an example) if you wish to change the title for this entry. We work by a consensus of multiple editors here, not unilaterally. El_C 04:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
100% agree, change the title now Nahasco (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Demographics vs ethnic cleansing
Applodion: Since we don't agree on the wording/section format I'm opening this discussion instead of reverting again, my suggestion is that the subsection title of "ethnic cleansing" should be more visible as the only other demographics related content is a list of ethnicities that live in the region, thus having "demographics" as the title is giving it more than it's appropriate weight. Do you have any suggestions as to how to word the section with both our points addressed? - Kevo327 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevo327: calling it "was" is nonsense, there are still Kurds in that region. Plus that's not what the source says. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- that was my mistake and I'm not arguing to change that. My only argument is for the section title. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just because the main demographics part is short does not mean that the sections should be mixed. Ethnic cleansing targeted only Kurds and Yazidis in certain areas; other groups are unaffected. By just putting everything under ethnic cleansing it would possibly suggest that all groups are affected. The solution would be to add a bit more content to the main demographics section. I can look for sources tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- that was my mistake and I'm not arguing to change that. My only argument is for the section title. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Applodion: I have to agree that expanding the section would be the most constructive way to solve this. Thank you for your cooperation and your work on improving the wiki-coverage about Syria. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Should Idlib be included as a part of the Turkish occupation zone?
| This discussion was started by a sock. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Turkey has had a number troops in Idlib since 2017. But since the Government offensive last year, Turkey has significantly increased its presence in the Idlib region (where Tahrir Al Sham is present). From 12 lightly armed and manned observation points with an estimate thousand troops. To between 20 to 30 thousand troops as of 2021 (according to US Special envoy for Syria[1]). A number which is over the number of Turkish troops in the occupied Syrian territory excluding Idlib HakurSakur (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Other factors to add for the inclusion of Idlib in the occupation zone besides the large number of Turkish soldiers includes. 1) Since June 2020 Idlib has adopted the use of Turkish Lira as its official currency.[2] 2) Turkey has created a joint operation room that includes vast majority of the fighters in Idlib like the structure in the rest of the occupied territory.[3] And 3) this month its being reported that the electricity of Idlib will be supplied by Turkey from the Turkish province of Hatay.[4] HakurSakur (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC) When it comes to finding the differences between the rest of the Turkish occupied territory and Idlib, only difference I am aware is that there are no Turkish post offices there yet in Idlib (PTT). HakurSakur (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
|
In-text attribution appropriate or more sources on "Kidnapping of women" subsection
In the paragraph of ====Kidnapping of women==== there are several hefty claims of accusations against the country of Turkey in the first parts of the subsection. To support those claims, there are sources from Missingafrinwomen.org, Al-Monitor, ANF News, The Jerusalem Post, and Voice of America. With the exception of Al-Monitor, all of the other news sources are known for either having negative bias towards Turkish perspective as in the case of ANF and JP, or government funded news agency as in VoA. While these sources are valid (with perhaps exception of Missingafrinwomen.org due to being an '.org'), exclusively putting these sources and one neutral one (Al-Monitor) does make the section look bias against Turkey.
To be specific, this is the part I am referring about:
--- Over 150 Yazidi and other Kurdish women and girls have been kidnapped by the SNA since the occupation of Afrin began in early 2018, either for ransom, rape, forced marriage, or because of perceived links to the Democratic Union Party.[70][71][72] Many of them were later killed.[73][74].
To fix this issue, I would recommend putting more sources on the first sentence, since it talks about 150 people being raped or killed, the only neutral citation in that source is from Al-Monitor (which does have good number of sympathetic contributors towards NES or critical of Turkey, in the website). The first sentence can be improved and be less bias if there are more citations to prove this claim against Turkey, or using a more neutral term as in 'Some sources claim that that over 150 Yazidi …'
The next sentence proves to be more problematic since it has 2 sources from JP and VoA and instantly accuses Turkey of killing many people. The JP is known for its harsh rhetoric against Turkey on many occasions and articles (both opinion pieces and contributors), and while VoA did articles critical of NES / SDF, it is known for making more articles critical towards Turkey. One of the problems with the VoA, it is funded by the American government, and both the US and Turkish governments are known to be at odds in the Syrian Conflict. I would highly recommend finding more sources for this part to prove it, otherwise saying "According to the Jerusalem Post and the Voice of America many of them were later killed" would make it more impartial towards readers.
All of my criticism can be simply solved by adding sources but if not, it would be more beneficial to add an In-text attribution towards readers by making it less harsh towards Turkey, since these claims are very harsh but sources that back them up are not as impartial. Since exclusively putting Israeli, Kurdish, and American news and 1 Al-Monitor news is not a fair way of using sources for this part that I referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsng7ba (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hsng7ba: As you requested, I will voice my opinion on the matter. IMO, adding the exact sources to every sentence does not help in this case. Sure, if only ANF and other propaganda channels would be claiming this stuff, we would have to add the sources. However, VOA, JoP, and al-Monitor are generally respected news sites. I agree that they have a bias. However, every sources reporting on Syria is biased. Perhaps some remember the extreme bogus stories spread by several Western news sites during the early civil war. By this logic, we would have to also add "BBC reported", "Reuters reported", etc. In addition, almost every sources besides hardline pro-Turkish ones agree that kidnappings occur in Afrin. Heck, even Arab News and stj-sy confirm this, and these are usually anti-NES (STJ have published many reports on human rights abuses by the SDF, for example). I will add both to the references to broaden the sourcing. Applodion (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Zero sources on self-governance & rewording of intervention to offensive
To better reflect the actions of Turkey regarding their individual offensives into Syria I reworded intervention to offensive in this change, but Beshogur has reverted. Yes military intervention is a term as they put, however considering it's now an occupation they are more than just intervening in Syrian affairs.
Secondly reverting and claiming they are self-governing without providing any sources.. Do I really need to point out the obvious? --TataofTata (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TataofTata: what do you mean there are no source? Whole page is filled about councils, etc. Also the word intervention is fine:
International military intervention is the movement of troops or forces of one country into the territory or territorial waters of another country, or military action by troops already stationed by one country inside another, in the context of some political issue or dispute.
Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Beshogur: No it is not. Read specifically section "Politics and administration" which definitely does not correspond to what you are saying, in fact the exact opposite. Referring to councils set up by Turkey and pretty much directed by Turkey and controlled by Turkish backed fighters is not self-governance. The Turkish Armed Forces using their proxy forces are occupying these areas and thus are in control if they are occupying.
- The invasion of Iraq is not called intervention is it? I'm trying to avoid disputes but calling Turkey's invasion "intervention" is pushing it. The infobox is referring specifically to the 2016, 2018 and 2019 Turkish offensives, so again what is your issue with offensive over intervention? Further to that, backing up the use of offensive:
- US White House statement on October - "...Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria.."
- [5] - "Syria Facing a Fourth Turkish Invasion?"
- [6] - "military offensive"
- [7] - "Turkey launches ground offensive in northern Syria"
- --TataofTata (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Your edits violated WP:NPOV.
controlled by Turkish backed fighters is not self-governance
it's not true. There are local councils.:The invasion of Iraq is not called intervention is it? I'm trying to avoid disputes but calling Turkey's invasion "intervention" is pushing it.
you talk like "intervention" is a word for justification. There's nothing wrong with the word, learn the terminology. And come on, comparing this to US invasion of Iraq where they removed a whole regime? Beshogur (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Your edits violated WP:NPOV.
- I have been the one who mostly wrote the "Politics and administration" section and I agree with Beshogur. By all accounts, the Turkish authorities leave local governance to the locals and limit themselves to military and major matters. Even in regards to issues like ethnic cleansing (which Turkey is usually accused of) the local groups actually play a major, sometimes even driving role (the abuse of Yazidis, for instance, is committed by local councils and militants, not by the Turkish military, although Turkey tolerates it). The terminology is also completely fine. Applodion (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Self-governance is not accurate to what is going on. For example the things you have said could then be argued to classify self-governance to a puppet state. Turkey has a large hand and influence in the "local governance" whether the militias or the council members it picks, in context it is because of Turkey these groups were able to take control of these areas. Some of these groups are also mercenaries as Turkey directly pays their salaries and other logistics. Many sources consider them a proxy of Turkey and on their direction have a hand in who is in charge. If this was not the case the U.S. would not have listed Turkey for being implicated in use of child soldiers as one example.
- @Beshogur: My edits did not violate WP:NPOV, ridiculous. Now I understand why you're objecting, you're POV pushing. Well I have provided sufficient sources and Wikipedia is NOT a place for original research as much as you feel that the term fits. Once again the links are referring to the offensives that took place. The infobox links are talking about the offensives specifically.
- --TataofTata (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Umh, no? For instance, the SNA, the de facto military of the occupation zone, literally keeps infighting (forming rival factions like the Syrian Front for Liberation), disobey orders, run protection rackets, interfer in politics, kidnap people, etc. despite Turkey having attempted to clamp down on these activities for years. That kind of behavior would never be accepted in actual "puppet" troops (unless you regard any vassal organization a "puppet", thereby making the term "puppet" basically meaningless). Just because Turkey influences stuff, pays salaries, and enables their existence through other support (including military backing) does not make the councils or militias their puppets; otherwise the entire late Afghan republic would have been an U.S. puppet. The SNA is more like medieval free companies, i.e. autonomous actors who chose their paymaster and mostly obey them in general terms as long as they get their money, but run things as they wish and follow their own agendas, sometimes morphing into state-like entities or seizing local power. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Applodion: What exactly makes you conclude that Turkey is making any attempt of clamping down regarding the crimes you have listed? If Turkey actually wanted to clamp down on it they would have by now as it began in 2018 and still ongoing. Turkey is capable of it, just like they are capable of another offensive, they are obviously not calling it the last straw regarding the war crimes. This is a false narrative and becoming original research as they are clearly not clamping down.
- What you have also said is contradictory to the fact that Turkey quite literally illegally began to sell Afrin's olives to Europe and justified it. "Turkey has acknowledged taking Afrin's olives. It views its actions as justified given its occupation of the area, and says this is being done with the backing of the local authorities that it supports." "We do not want revenues to fall into PKK hands," Agriculture Minister of Turkey, Bekir Pakdemirli said. "We want the revenues from Afrin... to come to us. This region in under our hegemony." So what do you think "our hegemony" exactly means? Also if I recall correctly A Turkish imam or erdogan literally praising the looting and stating that it is the bounty and reward for the fighters, essentially fine with similar crimes too. --TataofTata (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't reddit. Come on. Beshogur (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Says you who has just ignored sources. May I remind you Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith should be followed. --TataofTata (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't reddit. Come on. Beshogur (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Umh, no? For instance, the SNA, the de facto military of the occupation zone, literally keeps infighting (forming rival factions like the Syrian Front for Liberation), disobey orders, run protection rackets, interfer in politics, kidnap people, etc. despite Turkey having attempted to clamp down on these activities for years. That kind of behavior would never be accepted in actual "puppet" troops (unless you regard any vassal organization a "puppet", thereby making the term "puppet" basically meaningless). Just because Turkey influences stuff, pays salaries, and enables their existence through other support (including military backing) does not make the councils or militias their puppets; otherwise the entire late Afghan republic would have been an U.S. puppet. The SNA is more like medieval free companies, i.e. autonomous actors who chose their paymaster and mostly obey them in general terms as long as they get their money, but run things as they wish and follow their own agendas, sometimes morphing into state-like entities or seizing local power. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Where's the personal attack exactly? And perhaps read WP:NOTAFORUM. Those sources are simply cherry picking, I could put bunch of that says the otherwise.
- [8] "turkish military intervention" 470,000 results.
- [9] "turkish military invasion" 32,100 results. (note that most are about Cyprus)
- [10] "turkish military offensive" 99,600 results.
Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Accused me of cherry picking results and you come up with this.. Insinuating "turkish military intervention" is only going to pull Syrian related results.. You made the effort to dismiss the use of 'invasion', while I don't see you "noting" the very obvious "intervention" many hits actually talking about Libya? As for not knowing what a personal attack is: maybe read up on Ad hominem to see how you focused on me instead of being civil, accusing me of WP:NPOV while you're clearly POV pushing. --TataofTata (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Here you go: [11] "turkish military intervention" syria (112,000 results). I'm trying to show military intervention isn't POV title, doesn't matter if it's Syria or Libya, same thing. Beshogur (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never denied that military intervention is not a term, go read from the start. You reverted my edit regarding the infobox linking to the actual articles on wikipedia on the offensives. The articles them selves call it an offensive. You also forgot to add Syria into the quotes, hence why you have 100k results. The use of "turkey's offensive in syria" brings up 22k, I find that enough to not accept a rewording. --TataofTata (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because it's "turkish" not "turkey's", less used word, we don't use America's, but American. I reverted because self rule is explained enough and intervention is not a POV word, see reactions section on Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, majority of countries calling it an intervention more than an offensive. You can see it by simply doing ctrl+f5. Beshogur (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say intervention is a POV word. I said it's to better reflect the actions of Turkey and specifically title the offensives correctly. Are you misunderstanding everything? Remember, you're the one who has issue with the word "offensive", you're literally denying these are offensives.
- As for counting words:
- Operation Euphrates Shield - "intervention" 13 uses, "offensive" 39 uses. (this one I believe started out as being more accurately an intervention, but it can be summed as an offensive with regards to the broader picture.
- Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) "intervention" 1 use, "offensive" 15 uses. (To be most accurate Turkey invaded Afrin) / Duplicate page that really should be merged Operation Olive Branch - "intervention" 7 uses, "offensive" 48 uses
- 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria - "intervention" 7 uses, "offensive" 70 uses
- You seem bent on making sure it can be as ambiguous as possible. --TataofTata (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Stop accusing me of misleading, but I have to correct: I was going to say operation. You seem to change those titles because it's pov, I show you that majority of countries calling these operation. Those 3 articles had previously many requested move discussions and finally it had been concluded that the 2019 operation didn't had the code name as title because less usage by the international media unlike Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch names. Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because it's "turkish" not "turkey's", less used word, we don't use America's, but American. I reverted because self rule is explained enough and intervention is not a POV word, see reactions section on Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, majority of countries calling it an intervention more than an offensive. You can see it by simply doing ctrl+f5. Beshogur (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never denied that military intervention is not a term, go read from the start. You reverted my edit regarding the infobox linking to the actual articles on wikipedia on the offensives. The articles them selves call it an offensive. You also forgot to add Syria into the quotes, hence why you have 100k results. The use of "turkey's offensive in syria" brings up 22k, I find that enough to not accept a rewording. --TataofTata (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Here you go: [11] "turkish military intervention" syria (112,000 results). I'm trying to show military intervention isn't POV title, doesn't matter if it's Syria or Libya, same thing. Beshogur (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Problems with the last sentence of the "Politics and administration" section
1. It has nothing to do with politics and administration of the Turkish occupation. It provides no new information to the section and to the article as a whole.
2. It's an exact paraphrasing of the NYT article intro and uses unencyclopedic language (abstract newspeak like "onslaught"). Close paraphrasing should be avoided.
The sentence has no place in this article and should be revamped or removed. Lightspecs (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Missing information in the background
I intend to add information about the invasion operations in the background section, any helpful editors are welcome to help. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Any expansions are welcome, but please do not put unneccessary POV language into the article. Applodion (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Proto-state and self governance in lead
the lead calls the occupation zone to be factually a proto-state
, while the source says that Ankara has been working on creating a proto-state within Syria out of the Euphrates Shield forces..
which is repeated in the body of the article.
The rest of the article also shows large degrees of integration and direct control from the Turkish state, including having Turkish governors. having self-governance in the lead is contradictory. any opinions about possible changes? - Kevo327 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kevo327: The terms "proto-state" and "self-governance" should not be regarded as being contradictory to control by and integration into Turkey. For example, modern Chechnya under Ramzan Kadyrov is highly autonomous, even fielding its own army, yet is undoubtedly part of Russia. The northern Syrian occupation zone is currently being formed into a Turkish vassal state which is simultaneously autonomous yet moving closer into a Turkish sphere. Applodion (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
How is this occupation, but sdf-held positions are not?
Doesnt make sense. 2A02:8109:2C40:2FA4:6015:E147:B7DA:8678 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The SDF is in their own country (Syria) while the Turkish army is invader (occupier), as simple as that. Ostirnim (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Except that many of the SDF leaders are also Turkish kurds who are exiled and trained in Qandil Iraq. 2607:9880:4277:FF02:50F7:94C7:8CE6:A638 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://archive.is/qCcFX 2607:9880:4277:FF02:50F7:94C7:8CE6:A638 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- What you say supports the term "Turkish occupation": both armies supposedly have Turkish nationals. Ostirnim (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Except that many of the SDF leaders are also Turkish kurds who are exiled and trained in Qandil Iraq. 2607:9880:4277:FF02:50F7:94C7:8CE6:A638 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)