Talk:Operation Olive Branch

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2018013011462519 ul6f31im92imofkjfa9l5edfd21.jpg
• 645x344-1498598820745.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Marjdabi: Hello Marjdabi! First of all I want to say that I did not remove your contribution out of malice, but because they have extensive problems:

• The images you have added were taken by the YPG/YPJ, and even though Turkey designates them as terrorist organizations, they can still hold copyright - Even ISIL and al-Qaeda members do hold copyright, so that we cannot use their images on Wikipedia. You should only upload media that is stated to be copryight-free. For example, the Qasioun News Agency states under their videos that they are Creative Commons, so you can upload screenshots or entire videos from them - They are a good source for images/videos in opposition-held areas.
• Furthermore, the entire section about the suicide bombing is already discussed in the section about the offensive itself; a separate section just for suicide bombings only makes sense when there were several, but there were not, so this is WP:UNDUE.
• I do not deny that the reports mention that the YPG/YPJ used or still uses child soldiers. These reports do not mention YPG/YPJ child soldiers in the Afrin District during the operation, however, so this section has no place here.
• Finally, the decision not to use certain sources such as specific Turkish and Russian newspapers for controversial topics, including war crime accusations, has been the result of several discussions that took place in the last few years. In addition, bombings are already mentioned in the "Turkish stabilization efforts and SDF insurgency". This section is barebones, of course, so it would be great if you could expand it with reports about the numerous bombings that took place in the last months. Try to find more reliable sources; Western sources can generally be used, but you can also use native Syrian media like Zaman al-Wasl and others. These sources also have a bias and problems, but are considered to be somewhat more reliable for these topics than Russian and Turkish media.

I hope you can see now why I removed your expansions. Applodion (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I ever said you removed to contributions out of malice, they are removed because of bias. The events are significant and need a section of their own. I can agree with the copyright work if you really suggest it will make a difference.

• The suicide bombing is a major event and controversy of the campaign that require a section on its own, rather than a single sentence during the offensive section. Similarly since TFSA war crimes have their own option the SDF war crimes require a section as well. And the SDF war crimes have caused more civilian and material casualties than the TFSA one so it does need a section ofits own.
• The source which claims YPG recruiting soldiers in Afrin does mention them recruiting children during the offensive. And so does the daily sabah website.
• The decision not to use certain newspapers would make this absolute, along with other articles regarding Syrian Civil War,since these specific countries are the few sources reporting the events in detail. This includes the countless Kurdish sources all of which are biased towards the Kurdish side, as well as the Al Masdar website which is owned by the Syrian Governement, (Which is used extensively in Wikipedia covering Syrian Civil War articles.) So if you want to pull out sources you feel are biased the entire article would become obsolete. So please stop applying your bias that the Pro Kurdish sources have greater legitimacy over the Turkish sources or the Russian sources. Both are allowed to be included in the article. If one of them is. The contribution I've made significantly improves the articles quality, and there is no specific reason to remove the entirety of the article. Marjdabi (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marjdabi: After thinking about it, you are probably right that the suicide bombing deserves its own section. Furthermore, this article confirms that the YPG used child soldiers during the operation, but the other references do not mention the Afrin operation and are unnecessary. I also think it would be best to move the section about the child soldiers to "Composition of forces". Finally, the sources you named like pro-YPG newspapers and al-Masdar News should also not be used as sources for controversial topics - just like Turkish and Russian sources, they can be used for non-contentious infos about military actions (where the frontline is, which militias and commanders are part of a battle, etc.). This is not my decision, the community agreed to handle these sources in this way to improve the neutrality. Applodion (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. A single suicide bombing by an individual fighter with little tactical and strategic consequences doesn't deserve to have an entire section, as if it was a significant tactic used during the offensive. It is by no means a "major event". It's better to mention it as a sentence or two in the offensive section. The "US-backed" part should also be removed as YPG/J forces in the Afrin Region were never supported by the US. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a mistake that the article was missing this the whole time, the controversial tactics and war crimes are listed in the article in detail. This section is one of the biggest if not biggest factor of the controversy of the campaign, it does require a section on its own as it is one of the biggest events during the campaign. The US backed part is included as the fighters received support from the US armed section of the group. Afrin region was not directly supported by the US but the US supported fighters traveled to Afrin during the operation.Marjdabi (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As Editor abcdef has said, the bombing wasn't really notable to deserve an entire section. But that it should be mentioned in a few sentences I agree. EkoGraf (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Operation "ongoing"

To what extent is the Operation still ongoing? SDF battle of Raqqa resulted in an ISIS insurgency going on to this day, which results in around 5-10 SDF deaths every week. Yet that article is dubbed as Decisive SDF victory. What I suggest is 2 status conditions, one in which says the main operation resulted in "Decisive Turkish victory" and the insurgency phase as "ongoing". When the operation is dubbed as ongoing it makes it appear is if there is still an operation being conducted, while it stopped almost 6 months ago now. The bombings and assassinations are not a part of the "Operation phase", as the title of the article mentions. Marjdabi (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree operation olive branch has been completed. The aftermath should get its own article Bibilili (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Turkish government has stated that the operation is ongoing, AND the YPG holdouts continue to fight - One has to compare it with the the Iraq War: This conflict did not end with the invasion, it was simply its start. I do not think that one can compare the ISIL insurgency around Raqqa with this case, as there appear to be much fewer ISIL bombings/attacks than YPG bombings/attacks. It is often not even clear who is carrying out the attacks in Raqqa, as both Syrian government loyalists and Turkish-supported FSA insurgents claim to be active in the area - these factions might include ex-ISIL fighters, but their insurgency would not be the same as an insurgency by ISIL. Furthermore, more than just NDF units were involved in the operation, namely militias from Nubl and al-Zahraa and the Baqir Brigade; the latter are part of the LDF which in turn is part of the regular armed forces. Applodion (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

To what extent is the operation "ongoing". Leaving the status as ongoing makes it appear as if the operation is still in the same phase as 6 months ago. Where as it is reduced one hundred to one since that day. A new status saying Decisive Turkish victory - Start of insurgency would make it more appropriate. The low level insurgency taking place is not a part of the operation and requires an article on its own. Other than the Military Operation part. The misleading infobox needs a better explanation asap. Marjdabi (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What I suggest is making a separate insurgency article, conclude the operation phase as Decisive Turkish FSA victory with an underline in the result section "Start of SDF insurgency in Afrin" redirecting to the new article. While also removing the contents of insurgency from the Operation phase. The article is already crowded and needs to be cut into two. Marjdabi (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your view that the operation is finished is WP:OR, as one can easily find sources that clearly state that "Olive Branch" is ongoing: This pro-Turkish site for example says "Turkey's ongoing Operation Olive Branch" in an article from 7 June 2018. Applodion (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Applodion. On Wikipedia we edit according to the sources, while unsourced edits are considered Original Research and are not permitted. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, as far as the sources go, Turkey itself has stated Operation "Olive Branch", which is the subject of this article, is still ongoing. They publish weekly operational briefings, constantly updating the number of SDF fighters they have "neutralized" in their operations against them in the Afrin region as part of "Olive Branch". Even Erdogan himself has stated the operation will be achieved when the Turks take Tal Rifaat. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and at the moment there are no sources that state Operation "Olive Branch" has ended, especially in a victory. The infobox already differentiates between two distinct phases in the "dates" section, the "Main combat phase" (which ended in late March) and the "SDF insurgency". In the section territorial changes it is already stated that most of the region has been seized by Turkish-back forces. I would remind that US operations such as Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) were ongoing for years, long after the main combat phases had ended, due to the insurgencies that followed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with multiple editors that say that there are insurgencies going on in every part of Syria. In SDF areas ISIS, regime and rebel cells are daily bombing, attacking and ambushing SDF targets. I think its unfair to say that the battle of Afrin isnt over, because that also means that the battle of raqqa isnt over. However i do support the current status-quo we should wait for the announcement of the Turkish army when they officialy say that the operation is over. The "SDF insurgency" phase should be changed to"post combat phase". I also agree with changing the name of this article to Operation Olive Branch. Needbrains (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

An insurgency is a combat phase of a conflict; we could only call it post-combat phase when all fighting has stopped. Applodion (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Afrin

There is article is completely misnamed and is literally incompetent. The ground given for rejecting the exactly usual name used throughout Wikipedia for exactly such events is:

(Editor abcdef moved page Battle of Afrin (2018) to Turkish military operation in Afrin over redirect: Don't move without consensus. The operation includes much more than just the battle in March, initial offensive, insurgency and counter-insurgency, etc)

> The operation includes much more than just the battle in March initial offensive, insurgency and counter-insurgency, etc)

1. The battle wasn't in March. It was, if anything, from 20 Jan 2018 - ~18 March 2018. It is to be wondered where the editor gets his information.

2. The insurgency and counter insurgency can be put under the head of battle, or its consequences, sequelae etc. Or these can be put in another article. This is not a point of distinction with "Turkish military operation": if anything that title is more decisively excluded by the very same points. The enemy of the insurgency is principally the TFSA militias, not the Turkish military, which has almost no presence. It is thus not part of a "Turkish military operation". The one thing that is without doubt is that "Olive Branch" is over, just as "Euphrates Shield" is over. The principal specifically TURKISH aspect was the use of the Turkish air force, which is no longer active. The editors points are in fact AGAINST rather than in favor of the current title, which has something of the character of fake news.

3. There are many ways to divide up this material but "Turkish military operation in Afrin" is not one of them. On the ground, the opponents were TFSA militias and YPG / SDF. The Turkish role was almost entirely restricted to the air. Thus to speak of the Afrin events as a 'Turkish military operation' is a simple falsification. IF THE CORRECT TITLE IS "TURKISH MILITARY OPERATION IN AFRIN" then the correct title of "Battle of Raqqa (2017) is "AMERICAN MILITARY OPERATION IN RAQQA" which is absurd. Indeed, since the US provided the principal air power in the Battle of Mosul, and only some ground troops, that article too should be called "AMERICAN MILITARY OPERATION IN MOSUL", which would be completely unreal.

4. That one speaks of 'Euphrates Shield' even now is due to the simple fact that there was nothing else to unite the areas recovered from ISIS. (Curiously there is a Battle of al Bab, but not a Battle of Jarablus, Azaz etc.) .

5. If this is not an article on the battle of Afrin, then where in wikipedia is the article on the battle of Afrin?

6. Consensus is quite desirable. The only earlier discussion took place before the end of the battle, when an article "Battle of Afrin city" was merged with this one. The present title is simply wrong. It does not represent the 'operation' as having two or more sides, but puts it in the category of a police sweep. I don't understand the purpose of this obvious falsification of reality, but it strongly suggests a political aim.

Chief sequoya (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, "Battle of Afrin" is no better title (does it mean the battle for Afrin Canton or Afrin Region or Afrin city?), and the insurgency is clearly part of the larger campaign. Furthermore, point 3 is somewhat misguided: The Turkish military was the leading part of the anti-SDF coalition, both in regards to command and actual firepower. While the TFSA was numerically stronger, it is up to debate to what extent any of the TFSA units operated independently; for the most part, they appear to have acted as auxiliaries (with the excepition of a few better trained groups). Some of your criticism is correct, however, and I think the best course of action would be to rename the article to "Operation Olive Branch" as it is the most fitting title without being too POV. Applodion (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the name of the article should be "Operation Olive Branch", just like the article for the other operation is named as Operation Euphrates Shield. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with moving the article to Operation Olive Branch. This has been open over a month without objections so I am going to boldly move the article to "Operation Olive Branch". Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)