This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.."
- [1] - "Syria Facing a Fourth Turkish Invasion?"
- [2] - "military offensive"
- [3] - "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.
- [4] "turkish military intervention" 470,000 results.
- [5] "turkish military invasion" 32,100 results. (note that most are about Cyprus)
- [6] "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: [7] "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: [7] "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)
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)