Talk:Manbij offensive

Erdogan/AKP invented propaganda narratives are not sincere sources

The embattled Erdogan/AKP regime in Turkey is rather desperately trying to publish invented propaganda narratives about the Manbij offensive, in order to save face with respect to their domestic constituency. Fine for them. But these invented propaganda narratives for domestic consumption in Turkey should not be mistaken as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. They are not. Let us stay with sincere sources. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

While there are diverse issues with this topic (at one point about half the article was not about the Manbij offensive but just copy and paste of Erdogan propaganda about the Manbij offensive), the apparently most controversial issue right now is the Erdogan claim about the ethnic composition of the SDF force. I did not touch the newly composed Erdogan-accommodating narrative about it in the next, however ridiculous and irrelevant I find the whole thing. However, we just cannot state Erdogan's obviously propaganda motivated claims as alleged facts in the box. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not just Erdogan propaganda. Two sources [1][2] from the US Coalition itself have been provided confirming the ethnic composition (majority being Arabs), as well as a report [3] from Masdar News (pro-Assad) also reporting on the majority being Arabs. The fact it is being reported on by half a dozen sources makes it relevant and notable enough per WP policy. Also, the Erdogan claim is not being heavily disputed as you put it. In fact, only SOHR reported Kurds were majority, and it reported before the four other sources said Arabs were majority (Erdogan, Coalition twice, Masdar), so basically the SOHR report is the one being heavily disputed and called incorrect (by the Coalition). Even though an Erdogan claim may be seen as propaganda by some, including me (although this in itself can be seen as a non-neutral POV per WP policy), you also got two reports by the Coalition and a pro-Assad source stating most are Arabs. The Coalition is considered reliable while a pro-Assad media outlet has no reason to claim propaganda on behalf of Erdogan (who is their enemy). EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing the mentioning of all this, and its vague suggestions of how the ethnic background of fighters on the SDF side might be composed (which by the way changes all the time due to reinforcements) in the text. We are only discussing the obsession by some isolated person here to put those numbers freely invented by Mr. Erdogan into the box as alleged facts. And this is openly POV propaganda narrative pushing by EkoGraf. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA First, it was not me who put it in the article in the first place, it was editor Falconet8 [4]. Editor Gre regiment also made a further update to the figures [5]. So your assertion I'm an isolated person is incorrect. Second, I already said two or three times that the US Coalition (twice) and a pro-Assad media outlet also said most are Arabs. The Coalition went as far as to call claims the Kurds were majority are incorrect. So I'm not pushing any POV propaganda, but making edits based on almost half a dozen different sources, and not just a possible Erdogan propaganda claim. Why you are ignoring the other three sources and are hung up on the Erdogan claim I don't know. Although this in itself can be seen as POV-pushing. Finally, calling a fellow editor an isolated person and obsessed and accusing him of pushing a POV propaganda is not in accordance with WP policy on civility and assuming good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA I have made a further attempt at compromise and removed the Erdogan source/claim from the infobox alltogether. Now, the figures are cited by the two official Coalition spokesmen and the Masdar news media outlet (both of which have nothing to do with Erdogan). EkoGraf (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me 2A1ZA, what was the point of your accusation against me here [6] about making attempts of distorting the facts according to the Erdogan propaganda narrative when I did not make absolutely any edits in the commander section at all since this article was started? In fact, the one who added Mohammed Abu Adil to the infobox was editor Applodion as seen here [7]. I think you owe me an apology at the very least for this unfounded accusation. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGraf. It is not AKP propaganda when several news outlets report that a majority or at least many fighters are Arab. Furthermore, when you removed Mohammed Abu Adil and listed Abu Layla as KIA, you did not just disregard the sources, but Kurdish sources - ARA News is a pro-Kursdish website, so that is probably the last place where one finds AKP propaganda. Applodion (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is Erdogan's propaganda it is clearly stated in the article that these are Erdogan's words: "However, the next day, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that ..." , so i think we are ok with that. Someone who will read the article will know that these numbers are according to Turkish sources.Gre regiment (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As we now have as the most autoritative source on that ethnic composition of the SDF force, "a Manbij Military Council commander who said 60 percent of the attacking force were Arabs and 40 percent Kurds, Turkmen and other ethnic groups", and apparently all who work on this article cheer that source and information, why can't be have the numbers in the box reflect that source? The numbers in the box are still based on that claim Mr. Erdogan made in one early press conference, nobody believes to be true, everybody knows to be invented. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Poly-ethnic composition of Manbij

Pretty much every source of the ethnic composition of Manbij before the Civil War states that "Manbij had an ethnically diverse population of Arab, Kurdish and Circassian" ethnic background people (explicit quote from the Manbij article on Wikipedia), and looking for a quantification of those three groups if anything gets the suggestion that all three were about equal in size. Therefore while it may be a desire of Arab supremacists, or those who promote an agenda of ethnic supremacism for the region in general, to refer to Manbij as an "Arab town", this article should stick with the facts and refer to Manbij as a poly-ethnic place. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at no point is the Poly-ethnic composition of Manbij mentioned in the article, at all. Nether has Manbij been referred to as an Arab town. We were talking about the attacking military force, not the town. EkoGraf (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point of time, the ethnic composition of the (pre-war or current) population of Manbij is not mentioned explicitly or implicitly anywhere in the article (and I am very happy about that). However, I guess my remark is important not only for the past but also for the future, just to deter future waves of ethnic supremacism. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Al-Masdar News" as a source?

From the high reputation "Syrian Civil War" subreddit at reddit:

After much deliberation and discussion amongst the moderator team we have unanimously decided to re-add Al-Masdar News to this list as well as open up the floor in the comments section of this thread, for more suggestions from our community of websites or "news" blogs. While the banning of Al-Masdar News may prove unpopular with some members of our community, I must assure those users that this was a decison that the WHOLE moderator team (Including myself and other mod's associated with pro-regime sentiments) agreed upon after much discussion. The reasons for which the moderator team have decided to ban the source include the fact that it is not an actual media network, it is effectively a blog acting like one. whilst popular with pro-regime users, The majority of contributors at al-Masdar News are not journalists and this has often been reflected in the heavy manner in which bias has influenced reporting at Al-Masdar News including gross misrepresentations, and blatantly incorrect information often being spun as "Breaking News". There are a wide variety of other unsubstantiated blogs or tabloid news websites in our black list that claim to be the "real news" representing all manners of political bias's and ideologies so please do not veiw the addition of al-masdar news as a targeted attack at a specific ideology or bias. I would also like to note that Leith has previously said he has no problem with Al-Masdar being blacklisted at this subreddit.

In my humble opinion, "Al-Masdar News" should not be considered a source. And this ridiculous claim today that many civilians in Manbij would volunteer to make suicide attacks for ISIL (and which actually made it into this article, I will not fight about that now, it is just too absurd) in my humble opinion very well underlines why. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is generally not accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. Its usually removed as a source citing WP policy. Also, I remember a few months back that on Reddit itself people called Wikipedia unreliable so... Masdar has been in use for years on Wikipedia as a semi-reliable source. When something is in question we cite from who the report came from, According to Masdar news or something along those lines. EkoGraf (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is unreliable.Alhanuty (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

SDF forces.

There is a huge difference between sources regarding the number of SDF troops deployed, from 2k to 9k. What number should be used. Its unenciclopedic to have such a distant numbers.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

About YPG's Claims

YPG can claim that Turkish artillery hit their positions, but that is far from being realistic.

If we look at the "source", we can easily see that the "claim" was that the Turkish artillery hit their positions in Kobane and its countryside. Even that claim was true, that would not mean that Turkey does support ISIL in Manbij offensive. This article is about Manbij offensive.

So, the "claim" should be removed from the infobox. It can remain in the article, if you still want that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyan Sipahi (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

1. The infobx clearly states that it is a YPG claim, and that relatively reliable sources (such as ARA News) reported it. The claim does not have to be true, but does warrant mentioning. 2. The infobox does not state support by Turkey for ISIL, but simply that Turkey attacked Kurdish positions near the Manbij frontline, and that the Kurds say that Turkey did so to hinder their progress near Manbij. 3. The claim has not to be realistic, as long as it is sourced and recognizable as simple claim. Applodion (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article. If you put it into the infobox, that would emphasize the claim. What makes ARA News relatively reliable? If Turkey did want to hinder the progress towrds Manbij, they would directly shell the SDF positions around Manbij. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyan Sipahi (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hospital news?

There was an earlier report about a hospital being taken by the SDF. Is the newest report about another hospital or is it just a late report about the same one? Ambi Valent (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been consolidated into a single news item now. Thanks. Ambi Valent (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Final ISIS convoy headed towards Al Bab in the end

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37093856 says the final ISIS convoy that left headed towards Al Bab. Other sources (less reliable, eg, Reddit) say they headed toward Jarablus and then turned west and headed to Al Bab. A regular editor of the article might like to incorporate the info. Nurg (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"City is Liberated"

We can't use that in Wikipedia, please be neutral or i will change all "liberated" into "captured". Same thing happens in Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, so please be neutral. This is not Kurdish forum or whatever. Beshogur (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Manbij offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160606152215/http://aranews.net/2016/06/senior-kurdish-military-official-will-defeat-isis-link-rojavas-cantons/ to http://aranews.net/2016/06/senior-kurdish-military-official-will-defeat-isis-link-rojavas-cantons/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160714201803/http://aranews.net/2016/07/least-32-isis-militants-killed-fresh-clashes-kurdish-led-sdf-north-aleppo/ to http://aranews.net/2016/07/least-32-isis-militants-killed-fresh-clashes-kurdish-led-sdf-north-aleppo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160714201822/http://aranews.net/2016/07/sdf-official-isis-militants-two-options-manbij-give-die/ to http://aranews.net/2016/07/sdf-official-isis-militants-two-options-manbij-give-die/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805232430/http://aranews.net/2016/08/western-backed-sdf-forces-make-advances-isis-syria-turkey-border/ to http://aranews.net/2016/08/western-backed-sdf-forces-make-advances-isis-syria-turkey-border/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 15 January 2018 (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:

• Map of Manbij offensive (2016).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Fighters in Manbij

In River Rainbow Haag's 'The volunteers' , there's a line that says there is a report of around 7000 fighters in the city of Manbij I believe can we fact check that it isn't 2000 fighters. more like 7000 fighters 148.252.35.14 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Article rhetoric is not neutral

The rhetoric in the article sounds like propaganda and needs to be extensively revised to be neutral. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have specific requests regarding wording, please name them. Applodion (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole artically is pretty much pro-SDF in wording. I don’t think you’re naive enough not to realize that. 176.89.69.45 (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

ISIL are a designated terrorist organisation, and they lost this battle comprehensively, the article shouldn't give them some false equivalence that doesn't exist in the sources for the sake of 'balance' (see False balance).

Ultimately, if you cannot tell us how you think the article should be changed, then no-one is going to be able to address your concerns, and the POV warning will be removed from the article. You are more than welcome to try to improve the article yourself. JeffUK 12:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, IS is actually given quite a bit of room in the article to explore their side of the events; heck, it even quotes IS members several times. Applodion (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The SDF is a designated terrorist organization too and they are written about as if they are heroes. If a bunch of ragtag militants serve the interests of a certain country then they are labeled as heroes, but if they don't then they're considered the "bad guys" by partial POV-pushing editors such as yourselves. I know I bust your bubble. Keep it neutral guys. Have some respect for yourselves. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As an entirely un-involved person who has never before edited (or even seen) this article, I think it reads very neutrally and states the facts clearly and simply based on the sources. I'm trying to understand why you think differently, please can you try to articulate one single thing about the article that you think needs changing? JeffUK 10:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've seen the changes you made, I think it goes too far to call the SDF 'A terrorist organisation' in the lead, as they're not widely recognised as such. However, I have incorporated the fact that Turkey believe they contain terrorist elements into the lead, as I think this actually helps the reader understand why Turkey opposed the SDF operation. JeffUK 10:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's all over now. The Syrian National Army (SNA) freed Manbij of terrorist infested SDF. By the way, the US, the EU, and other countries recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization. The PKK has direct links to the YPG, which forms the majority of the SDF. Ergo it is not far-fetched to say the SDF is by default a terrorist organization. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Applodion (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2024 Manbij offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)